Is GW Bush a Moron>?

[Zoomerang96]

you know, i believe most of this so called "american ignorance" stems from what bono said earlier in response to the terror attacks. he said something to the effect that the states will no longer think of themselves as an isolated island."

i go to the states often, as i only live 5 miles from the border, and i need not go further than 2 hours south and people dont even know where manitoba is. theyve never been there.

people believe we live in igloos. i go to a u2 concert in minneapolis in may, and when people ask me where im from they respond and say "wow, you must feel really warm here."



uh, no. do you know where manitoba is?

how many of you posters can even find afghanistan, iraq, north korea, iran, yemen or new brunswick on the map?

yes, i am angry. sue me.

[Hi Bias]

Zoomerang,

I have posted before that Iraq is only about oil. Here is a long editorial making that argument plus more.

I did not post the link because it requires password login.

Beyond Regime Change
The administration doesn't simply want to oust Saddam Hussein. It wants to redraw the Mideast map.
By Sandy Tolan
Sandy Tolan, an I.F. Stone Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, reports frequently on the Middle East. Jason Felch, a student in Tolan's "Politics and Petroleum" class, contribu

December 1 2002

BERKELEY -- If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here's a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East.

The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military superiority. The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and their co-visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant governments in Syria and Iran -- either by force or internal rebellion.

For the first step -- the end of Saddam Hussein -- Sept. 11 provided the rationale. But the seeds of regime change came far earlier. "Removing Saddam from power," according to a 1996 report from an Israeli think tank to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was "an important Israeli strategic objective." Now this has become official U.S. policy, after several of the report's authors took up key strategic and advisory roles within the Bush administration. They include Richard Perle, now chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, special assistant in the State Department. In 1998, these men, joined by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (now the top two officials in the Pentagon), Elliott Abrams (a senior National Security Council director), John Bolton (undersecretary of State) and 21 others called for "a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad."

After removing Hussein, U.S. forces are planning for an open-ended occupation of Iraq, according to senior administration officials who spoke to the New York Times. The invasion, said Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, would be "a historic opportunity that is as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." Makiya spoke at an October "Post-Saddam Iraq" conference attended by Perle and sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.

Any occupation would certainly include protecting petroleum installations. Control of the country's vast oil reserves, the second largest in the world and worth nearly $3 trillion at current prices, would be a huge strategic prize. Some analysts believe that additional production in Iraq could drive world prices down to as low as $10 a barrel and precipitate Iraq's departure from OPEC, possibly undermining the cartel. This, together with Russia's new willingness to become a major U.S. oil supplier, could establish a long-sought counterweight to Saudi Arabia, still the biggest influence by far on global oil prices. It would be consistent with the plan released by Vice President Dick Cheney's team in June, which underscored "energy security" as central to U.S. foreign policy. "The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy," the report states.

Some analysts prefer to downplay the drive to control Iraqi oil. "It is fashionable among anti-American circles ... to assume that U.S. foreign policy is driven by commercial considerations," said Patrick Clawson, an oil and policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an October talk. Rather, Clawson said, oil "has barely been on the administration's horizon in considering Iraq policy.... U.S. foreign policy is not driven by concern for promoting the interests of specific U.S. firms."

Yet Clawson, whose institute enjoys close ties with the Bush administration, was more candid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-Hussein Iraq in 1999: "U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make significant profits," he said. "We should not be embarrassed about the commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq into the world economy. Iraq, post-Saddam, is highly likely to be interested in inviting international oil companies to invest in Iraq. This would be very useful for U.S. oil companies, which are well positioned to compete there, and very useful for the world's energy-security situation."

Indeed, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, whose close ties with Perle, Wurmser, Rumsfeld and Cheney predate the current Bush administration, met recently with U.S. oil executives. Afterward, Chalabi, the would-be "Iraqi Karzai" and the hawks' long-standing choice to lead a post-Hussein Iraq, made it clear he would give preference to an American-led oil consortium. He also suggested that previous deals -- totaling tens of billions of dollars for Russia's Lukoil and France's TotalFinaElf -- could be voided.

Next month, key Iraqi exiles will meet with oil executives at an English country retreat to discuss the future of Iraqi petroleum. The conference, sponsored by the Center for Global Energy Studies and chaired by Sheik Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister, will feature Maj. Gen. Wafiq Samarrai, the former head of Iraqi military intelligence, and former Iraqi Oil Minister Fadhil Chalabi, now executive director of the center.

Fadhil Chalabi estimates that total oil reserves in Iraq could exceed Saudi Arabia's and that daily production one day could reach 10 million barrels, making it the world's largest producer. Hence, on the center's conference agenda is a discussion of Iraq as a "second Saudi Arabia," and the prospect of a world without OPEC. Oil executives and analysts heading to the country retreat will also be able to purchase the center's 800-page analysis of the prospects for exploration in Iraq. The cost: $52,500.

But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners determined to elevate Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign policy goals, would be to destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state: namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran.

"The War Won't End in Baghdad," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal. In 1985, as a consultant to the National Security Council and Oliver North, Ledeen helped broker the illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran by setting up meetings between weapons dealers and Israel. In the current war, he argues, "we must also topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus."

In urging the expansion of the war on terror to Syria and Iran, Ledeen does not mention Israel. Yet Israel is a crucial strategic reason for the hard-line vision to "roll back" Syria and Iran -- and another reason why control of Iraq is seen as crucial. In 1998, Wurmser, now in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. "It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," he said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition."

Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was "at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein." And Perle, Wurmser and Feith (now in the Pentagon), in their 1996 Israeli think tank report to Netanyahu, argued for abandoning efforts for a comprehensive peace in favor of a policy of "rolling back" Syria to protect Israel's interests.

Now, however, Israel is given a lower profile by those who would argue for rollback. Rather, writes Ledeen, U.S. troops would be put at risk in order to "liberate all the peoples of the Middle East." And this, he argues, would be virtually pain-free: "If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support."

Perle concurs on Iraq -- "The Arab World ... will consider honor and dignity has been restored" -- as well as Iran: "It is the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime."

Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran "the day after" the Iraq war ends.

The vast ambition of such changes to the Middle Eastern map would seem an inherent deterrent. But it is precisely this historical sweep, reminiscent of Sykes-Picot and the British arrival in Iraq in 1917, that many close to the administration seek. Publicly, Perle and Ledeen cling to the fantasy that American troops would be welcomed in Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus with garlands of flowers. Yet they are too smart to ignore the rage across the Arab and Muslim worlds that would surely erupt in the wake of war on multiple Middle Eastern fronts.

Indeed, the foreshadowing is already with us: in Bali, in Moscow, in Yemen and on the streets of Amman. It's clear that even in Jordan, a close ally of the U.S., the anger at a U.S. attack on Iraq could be hard to contain.

Indeed, the hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. "One can only hope that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please," Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August. "That's our mission in the war against terror."

[Zoomerang96]

thats a really interesting article, thanks for posting that.

[bonoman]

I agree with Zoo, when i turn the tv onto a political program ie crossfire, meet the press all i see is people at eachothers throats. How can anything get done if neither side is willing to give an inch? We will never all be able to agree but we must compremise to go forward in life. Bush was elected president by a very small amount, lets say for arguements sake 52-48, does he not owe it to the other say 48% to hear from their reps and take what they want into conserderation. Yes it is a democracy and yes you should be looking out for your voters but you must look out for everyone.

It seems to me that alot of the worlds political arenas, not only the US, have become a place of fighting and in-fighting and just seems to piss people off. Why is it so hard to sit down and come to an agreement anymore? Our politicians should be looking out for everyone, not only the voters that voted for them.

[Zoomerang96]

nicely put bonoman.

[STING2]

Zoomerang96,

For your information, sanctions were put on Iraq in 1990 because of their invasion of Kuwait. Those sanctions have not been lifted because of Iraq's failure to comply with 16 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules.

The United Nations established no fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq to prevent Iraqi aircraft from being used to kill and obtain information on Shia's and Kurds living in those area's. Iraq fires on United Nations aircraft flying on UN approved missions. The pilots of those aircraft respond in self defense and fire missiles or drop bombs on the anti-aircraft missile sites that engaged them.

This is not about absolute control. Its not about who's country it is. Its about Iraq's continued violations of the international laws and aggreements it agreed to abide by after their unlawful invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Absolute control? This USA wants to see an Iraq liberated of Saddam.

The United States is not "terrorizing" anyone. Rather around 16% of a annual budget goes to national defense primarily to defend area's outside of US borders and important to the global economy and dozens of countries.

I'd like to see what the Canadian Economy would look like without US consumers buying your stuff. Canada needs the US economy like a child needs its parents. Most of Canada's exports go to the largest economy in the world, the USA. Most countries in the world envy Canada's close proximity to an Economy that generates 10 trillion dollars in goods and services every year.

The Canadians should be spending double of what they do on defense and contribute more to certain international efforts. They will have to double that defense budget before effectively doing so though. The USA picks up Canada's slack in international security issues and of course provides Canada free trade with the largest and richest consumer market in the world.

[bonoman]

Sting, my friend, my neighbour, my ally i think you are right in so many ways but for your comments you must go and do a little research.

Has Canada ever been attacked, militarly or terrorist?

No, so why the need to bulk up our military? Againist what? The person that someday come and bomb us. Well for what i see, i dont see it happening. Canada is seen as a peaceful country that accepts all races and lets them come here and then bring there whole family!

Your comment on our economy, well in two words, you're wrong!

Oil, you's love it and we got it and you want it and we sell it to you. Maybe we should go find someone else to sell it too. I'm postive you wouldnt be happy about that, especially when your gas and heating bills go up drasstically. Canada ships 1.8 million barrels a day to the USA. I wouldnt think you'd like to go to Iraq for that. The US is the most powerful nation, the richest and the best, blah blah blah. But the one thing they have nearly zero control over is oil. And you's hate it. The one thing that other countries have you by the balls( and they love to squezze). Up hear in Alberta, oil capital of Canada, we say we are just your gas station and when we go out of business you will be pushing your cars as we drive by in SUV's.

You underestimate Canada, ya we love hockey and live in igloos and drive snowmoblies to work but we came out of this recsession better off and quicker then you's.

But you are right you are the richest and we love you for it becasue you'll pay good money. My dad makes 200,000 a year because you love our oil. So i guess i have to say thanks for paying for my education!!

[Mrs. Edge]

Originally posted by STING2
Canada needs the US economy like a child needs its parents.

Patronizing statements like this, and another comment someone made about all of the countries of the world being like a bunch of kids needing to get bailed out by their daddy, the USA, is one of the reasons why we get so annoyed with the States and its superiority complex! If the States wants Canada to "pull its weight" and be an ally, they should 1) learn more about us 2) care that we exist and 3) give us some more respect!!!!

I'm not yelling at you, STING2 per se, and I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but I just get so tired of this......here's an article about this very topic to illustrate my point.

Even before the `moron' flap, Canada was petty in U.S. eyes
Bush White House regards neighbour as minor irritant President's relationship with Chrétien extremely poor


WILLIAM WALKER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—Lost in the fiery cross-border debate over a former Prime Minister's Office staffer calling President George W. Bush a "moron" is the sobering reality of current Canada-U.S. relations.

As bad as the "moron" comment was, the underlying truth is much more troubling for Canada as one half of the world's two largest trading partners.

Canada is viewed inside the Bush White House as a minor irritation; a nation with little credibility on major issues such as the war on terrorism that nonetheless still "cries out" occasionally like a child angered with its parents.

Canadians are a bunch of "weenies," said CNN Crossfire host Robert Novak, summarizing the conservative view.

"We may be able to trust the Saudis, but can we trust our shifty neighbours to the north?" Novak asked this week.

Canada is "a whining kid who's got to start acting like a man," wrote conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg in a cover story he penned for National Review magazine.

Novak and Goldberg are plugged in to Republican senior officials. Their views echo the unspoken words Bush's White House officials are too well trained to utter in public.

In Bush's view, Canada doesn't contribute enough militarily to warrant being a major player. It can be part of the team for symbolic reasons, but when it wants to have a say on the play calling, the coach — Bush — smirks and sends it off to the sidelines.

When Prime Minister Jean Chrétien called Bush a "cowboy" several months ago in a closed-door Liberal caucus meeting — as revealed by the Star's Tim Harper — this newspaper's story was circulated around the White House via e-mail.

One White House staffer reacted with mild amusement tinged with boredom.

"Look, as far as this White House is concerned," he told the Star at the time, "the U.S.-Canada relationship is defined by Canada. If they want to trade with us, fine. If they want to co-operate on bilateral security issues, fine. If they want to bitch and complain, fine. We're doing our thing."

In Washington, the Bush White House views Canada — as have other administrations for decades — with benign neglect.

Bush, the first MBA president, has no time or inclination to get involved in personal disputes. Aides say he finds Canadian complaints, including the one about a lack of recognition from him after the Sept. 11 attacks, a waste of time.

His relationship with Chrétien, whom White House aides have nicknamed "Dino," is extremely poor. Chrétien is the only leader of a major U.S. ally who hasn't been invited to stay at the White House, at Blair House (the Washington residence reserved for foreign heads of state) or the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Even Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has stayed at Crawford. But the chances of Chrétien ever seeing Bush's sprawling ranch, except as a tourist, are bleak.

Presidential-prime ministerial relations between Canada and the U.S. have historically been a mixed bag.

President Richard Nixon once referred to Pierre Trudeau as "that a--hole." But Brian Mulroney had infamously close — some say too close — relationships with Ronald Reagan and Bush's father. Chrétien and Democratic president Bill Clinton got along well, even though their personalities could not have been more different.

Those relationships have little to do with Canada-U.S. policy and how it affects Canadian citizens. The U.S. has proven in the past it will deal with Canada on substance if Ottawa is engaged.

The problem now is that Canada — despite the crucial importance of its economic relationship with America — has not enhanced its status in Washington, but diminished it.

Bush is far more engaged with Britain, and its Prime Minister Tony Blair, than with Canada. Bush's focus on Mexico has diminished, but still exceeds his interest in America's northern neighbour.

When it comes to border controls, North American perimeter security, the war on terrorism, or other issues, Bush would rather hear substantive Canadian contributions than gripes about perceived slights, such as the PMO's assertion that Bush was "hijacking" the NATO summit in Prague to promote his Iraq strategy.

Clearly, what Bush would prefer is irrelevant to Canada.

Still, the White House is said to be waiting patiently to deal with Paul Martin as prime minister, a man Bush knows and someone who has close ties to U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill from their dealings with the G-20 group of international finance ministers.

In the meantime, Chrétien's spokesperson Francie Ducros has resigned over her "moron" comment. That should not end the debate over Canada-U.S. relations. Unless Canada steps up to the plate, it risks being steamrolled under a new North American and world order that this Bush administration intends to establish.

[STING2]

Bonoman,

Or perhaps it is you that needs to do more research. I'm happy to do more research, it only helps. Still the points I made are true.

First, a country does not have to be hit on its physical territory to actually be attacked. Second, Canada is a member of NATO. 9/11 was an attack on the USA a fellow NATO member with Canada. Any attack on any of the now 26 members of NATO is an attack on them all. In addition, because of the interdependent world we live in, attacks on major trading partners of Canada and anything that would effect the Global price of oil is an attack on Canada because their effects can often be greater than a literal physical attack within Canadian borders. But remember, even if you were just thinking about the physical security of Canada, Canada has 25 other countries physical security to think about because its a member of NATO.

I'm wrong about the Canadian Economy eh? Who buys most of the oil that Canada sells? It is the USA I believe. Fact is though, we could replace Canada with Russia in a heartbeat. Canada will not be able to find customer as large and as rich as the USA because none exist. So if you want to think in terms of who has who buy the balls, its the USA that has Canada and many other countries by the balls because of the massive size of our economy.

But something the USA and Canada want our low oil prices. The only way to do that is to insure that consumers everywhere have full access to the worlds supply of oil. Its not really about where you get your oil from, but what the world market price of oil will be. If supply is cut off in the middle east by a dictator or some other event, then the Global price of oil will rise, because as supply decreases, the demand for the remaining supply goes up.

Its in Canada's interest to keep the price of oil from rising because Canada like all western economies rely's on oil for their energy. If you over pay for energy, it will have a major negative impact on the Canadian economy. Canada may be able to produce much of its own oil, but without foreign oil in the Canadian market, the price would go up and hurt the economy.

Its in Canada's interest to have a strong military to support international law and internatinal stability in the middle east so that global oil prices and there by the price of oil in Canada does not go up for an extended period.

The USA has a lot of control over oil and can if need be, produce most of its own(Alaska). The concern for the USA , Canada, and the whole world for that matter, is the Global price of oil. Is far better to let there be a free flow of oil and competition because it drives the price down for the engine of all economies, consumers.

I've not underestimated Canada, just laid the facts on the table. Oh and about who has recovered better from the economic recession, check these facts out from The Economist!

Current Unemployment rate in Canada: 7.6%

Current Unemployment rate in the USA: 5.7%

Average economic growth rate in Canada this year: 3.2%

Average economic growth rate in the USA this year: 3.2%

[diamond]

Originally posted by Mrs. Edge


Patronizing statements like this, and another comment someone made about all of the countries of the world being like a bunch of kids needing to get bailed out by their daddy, the USA, is one of the reasons why we get so annoyed with the States and its superiority complex! If the States wants Canada to "pull its weight" and be an ally, they should 1) learn more about us 2) care that we exist and 3) give us some more respect!!!!

I'm not yelling at you, STING2 per se, and I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but I just get so tired of this......here's an article about this very topic to illustrate my point.


WILLIAM WALKER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

still "cries out" occasionally like a child angered with its parents.

Canadians are a bunch of "weenies," said CNN Crossfire host Robert Novak, summarizing the conservative view.



Canada is "a whining kid who's got to start acting like a man," .

In Bush's view, Canada doesn't contribute enough militarily to warrant being a major player. It can be part of the team for symbolic reasons, but when it wants to have a say on the play calling, the coach — Bush — smirks and sends it off to the sidelines.

.

One White House staffer reacted with mild amusement tinged with boredom.

"Look, as far as this White House is concerned," he told the Star at the time, "the U.S.-Canada relationship is defined by Canada. If they want to trade with us, fine. If they want to co-operate on bilateral security issues, fine. If they want to bitch and complain, fine. We're doing our thing."

In Washington, the Bush White House views Canada — as have other administrations for decades — with benign neglect.

including the one about a lack of recognition from him after the Sept. 11 attacks, a waste of time.

His relationship with Chrétien, whom White House aides have nicknamed "Dino," is extremely poor. Chrétien is the only leader of a major U.S. ally who hasn't been invited to stay at the White House, at Blair House (the Washington residence reserved for foreign heads of state) or the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

.

Presidential-prime ministerial relations between Canada and the U.S. have historically been a mixed bag.


Those relationships have little to do with Canada-U.S. policy and how it affects Canadian citizens. The U.S. has proven in the past it will deal with Canada on substance if Ottawa is engaged.

The problem now is that Canada — despite the crucial importance of its economic relationship with America — has not enhanced its status in Washington, but diminished it.

Bush is far more engaged with Britain, and its Prime Minister Tony Blair, than with Canada. Bush's focus on Mexico has diminished, but still exceeds his interest in America's northern neighbour.

Bush would rather hear substantive Canadian contributions than gripes about perceived slights, such as the PMO's assertion that Bush was "hijacking" the NATO summit in Prague to promote his Iraq strategy.

Clearly, what Bush would prefer is irrelevant to Canada.

Still, the White House is said to be waiting patiently to deal with Paul Martin as prime minister, a man Bush knows and someone who has close ties to U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill from their dealings with the G-20 group of international finance ministers.

In the meantime, Chrétien's spokesperson Francie Ducros has resigned over her "moron" comment. That should not end the debate over Canada-U.S. relations. Unless Canada steps up to the plate, it risks being steamrolled under a new North American and world order that this Bush administration intends to establish.

Canada needs to grow up, and follow Britan's example.

Britan owns them anyway....

thank u-

DB9

[STING2]

Mrs. Edge,

Sorry for the unobjective and trashy remark. There are far more objective and technical ways to get my view point across which the remark probably failed to do anyways.

But if I had a dollar for everytime someone said something unobjective about the USA in this forum, I'd be a wealthy man.

Canada will certainly get more respect if they put more people into the military and provide more forces for NATO and increase their participation in international crises that that have a strong potential to erupt in war.

[bonoman]

Sting2, you have lots of good points in your two posts. I still think the US needs our oil more then we need them to buy it from us. But i guess we can both agree that we both need eachother. I really dont want to get into a arguement about who would be worse off without eachother, we both need eachother. I do think however that the US does not give Canada any where near the respect we deserve, especially that we are eachothers biggest trading partners.

I do object to your critizisms about our military. Our track record, if studied have shown that we do support many if not all NATO inicitives. We send peacekeepers to places where they are needed. You must remember that our country, big yes, only houses 31 million ppl. a tenth of your population, and your country outspends every other country grosely. The US spends 396 billion, second to that is Russia at 60 billion. Canada spends 7.7 Billion now if we were to mulitple that by say 10 that would put us at 77 billion second to only you's.

I live next to two of the countries military bases and am proud to be friends with some of them. I do not think we are doing anything wrong and just becasue you's spend so much does not mean the rest of the world is doing something wrong. Maybe a little less spending on your part might free money up for other things.

[Zoomerang96]

sting, the way you talk about its part of our responsibility to make sure oil prices stay low in the middle east is exactly what im talking about. its the middle east! its not canada! its not the us! and you know what? its up to them how much they want to sell it for! maybe if were werent killing their children through greed, we wouldnt have conflict with them to begin with.

you mention the reason behind sanctions on iraq is because of the kuwait war. thats utter bullshit, and you know it. why the hell hasnt the us slapped sanctions on turkey for their invasion on northern cyprus a few decades ago! thats right, you guessed it! they have nothing to offer the states! its funny, do you not even know why the war started between iraq and kuwait? kuwait was stealing their oil! gee, i wonder what the us would do, trigger happy of all nations...

instead of relying so heavily on oil, could the western powers not spend some resources creating better public forms of transportation that are environmentally healthy and ARENT dependant on other countries resources which we feel the need to steal? take a look at europe for example.

this makes me more and more angry all the time. americans need to leave their wonderland every once in a while to see what its like in the rest of the world. you simply have no idea. not everything rotates around dollars and cents.

fuck, i dont even care. go fight your fucking wars, just leave canada out of it. let the bloodshed of innocent people over economics be on the american governments hands. their judgement will come one day.

oh, and britain is a joke too. tony blair is dubya's bitch.

there, that was a post that made me feel better. not a lot of cold facts cited, but i believe im repeating was commonly "known" outside the universe that is the us of a.

[STING2]

Bonoman,

The USA and Canada certainly do need each other and perhaps another reason that Canada is often forgotten or not given its proper due is because, unfortunately, many people in the USA consider Canada to be apart of the USA.

The USA currently spends 18% of its annual budget on defense spending. Canada spends about 7.6% of their budget on defense spending. Canada has in the past spent and provided troops on a level closer to what the USA has done. But over the past 10 years, its military capability has rapidly dropped. Its true that Canada is 1/10th the size of the USA but the size and capability of its military is much smaller than 1/10th that of the USA.

Canada needs to double its military budget to bring it in line with the USA.

I do think there is a problem when other NATO Allies are not spending what they should be to help provide for security. Instead the USA has to do it which is part of the reason why the USA's budget is so much higher relative to several other countries in 2002.

90% of the combat missions flown in the NATO military mission against the Serb slaughter in Kosovo in 1999 were flown by the USA simply because most European aircraft were not modern enough and did not have all weather capability. Remember that the USA is now only 1/3 population wise of NATO yet is often providing 90% of the military force for operations like Kosovo. What percent of the force in Afganistan was from other NATO countries rather than the USA?

There are legitimate security concerns that have to be addressed and the USA contributes far more than the other countries to solving or containing these security problems even when population and budget are taken into account. Its time that other countries like Canada begin to pull their own weight and contribute more to the collective security of NATO and other countries.

The USA's massive defense budget and capability has certainly allowed Canada to take advantage and have a smaller defense budget. US defense spending in fact needs to increase some more in several area's. One simply cannot look at defense spending as just a pile of money. You have to look at it from the perspective of what our the threats to your security around the world and inside your country and then spend the money that is needed to accomplish your goals for security and pay those who serve in the military a good salary considering the enormous difficulty of the job they do. That is exactly what the USA does. The USA's defense budget does attempt to take into acount, Allies that do not provide their fair share. But that is often difficult to do.

Militarily, what is Canada alone capable of doing on the battlefield and is it 1/10th or around that of the USA's capability. When I get the chance I'll provide what a complete look at Canada's military as of June 1997.

[Zoomerang96]

Originally posted by STING2


Canada will certainly get more respect if they put more people into the military and provide more forces for NATO and increase their participation in international crises that that have a strong potential to erupt in war.

so we gain respect through actions of war, eh?

you have no idea what we did during the balkan conflicts do you?

and you know what, we fought in afganistan with you guys, and the only ones to die were FROM YOU OWN BOMBS.

did this make us news? no. world news tonite made NO mention of it after it was everywhere in canada. its bad news, it has only negative propaganda value.

tora bora mountains in afghanistan, surely youve heard of them right? well everyone that watched the news over the past year sure has...but the funny thing is, NOONE HAS SEEN THEM. yet another faulty jouranistic error. there are no caves in that region.

maybe we just dont want or need your respect.

pacifism is so like what hippies and mennonites are into, its like, so uncool.

the difference between our mentalities is this...

you: the bigger the guns, the bigger the voice, while we would actually rather die before raising a gun.

funny again, how america is "found on christianity." lol. right. i can just see Jesus strapping on his weapons heading out to war...

thats the end of my rant for today.

it would be wise not to think of me or my opions as foolish...there are a lot more of us than you may think.

[Zoomerang96]

oh, and im still dieing to hear from any of the pro-war people here can locate any of the axis of evil counties outlined by the commander in cheif a year ago?

[STING2]

Zoomerang96,

You fail to understand many of my statements. When I talk about the global price of oil that consumers pay, I'm talking about what somone in Saudi Arabia pays, what someone in Canada pays and what someone anywhere in the world pays. All are effected when the Global price of oil increases. All benefit when energy prices our lower. That includes citizens living in the middle east. Simply increasing the price of oil will only ruin the country that is trying to sell it because no one will be able to afford it and you can't eat oil either. The whole country benefits when it produces and prices oil based on domestic and global demand.

Do you believe everything the government of Iraq tells you? Iraq accused Kuwait of slant drilling and stealing their oil, but this has never been proven and even if it was so, there was already a diplomatic process underway to resolve the dispute. Even if Iraq's accusation were true and it felt the need to act militarily, was it necessary to take over all of Kuwait and annex the country because of a few "alleged" oil drilling stations near the border? I think Not!

Europe is a big user of oil and no one is stealing oil either. The USA and Canada actually produce a substantial amount of their own oil. Oil is energy and it is cheap. Energy is needed and if another form of energy is introduced to the market that is cheaper and more efficient than oil, it will be used. The need to convert and the conversion process has already started. By 2075 at the current consumption level, all the oil in the world will be gone.

So you say I have no idea and need to leave my wonderland to see what the rest of the world is like? Well for your information, I just arrived from Ireland yesterday. My father served 30 years in the US military being stationed in South Vietnam during the Vietnam war, he was also stationed in South Korea twice each for a year, and has served extensivly in Europe and also Somalia and Sudan. One of my good friends who is a Marine just got back from Afghanistan 3 weeks ago from a 6 month mission in Afghanistan. What he saw and did there was very interesting and informative. I havn't said you live in a "wonderland" with "no idea". Don't assume others here have "no idea" either.

The USA is about increasing the security of others and protecting innocent life, not taking it. Military action is often necessary to protect innocent life, protect and enforce international law, and protect the global economy that many people rely on for their jobs which they use the money from to feed their childern and send them to school.

So Britain is a joke because they support US policy on Iraq. How about the 15 members of the United Nations that voted to support Bushes resolution on Iraq? I remind you the vote was 15-0. Everyone in the Security council voted to support Bushes resolution. Are countries like Bulgaria and Romania jokes because they support Bush's policy on Iraq?

[STING2]

Zoomerang96,

You get respect by helping to protect international law and order and protecting international security around the world. One often has to use military force to accomplish those goals.

I actually have a very good Idea of what happened during the Balkan conflicts and followed it closely from the innitial break out of military fighting on June 25, 1991 up to problems in the region today.

I realize Canada participated with the USA in Afghanistan but the number of soldiers they sent was a tiny fraction of the total, even taking into account Canada's smaller population. The bombing was an accident. Military training can be difficulty and risky sometimes. The USA lost several soldiers in a similar event while training in Kuwait last year. Its a tragedy and more needs to be done to prevent these accidents from happening.

Your incorrect in saying that this did not make US news. Every major US news outlet reported it for days. Your also wrong in your assumption that because one is physically located in the USA they don't have access to international media. I remind you this is the 21st century not the 17th.

Your assumption about Tora Bora is false! I have seen Tora Bora on TV and my good friend who is a Marine just got back from Afghanistan 3 weeks ago after being there 6 months. He was setting up base camps for special forces soldiers before they went off on their missions. He moved around and set up bases for different operations all Around Afghanistan. He has been to and flown over Tora Bora multiple times!

There is nothing unchristian about defending oneself or others. Its not unchristian to engage in military action to defend people and stop others brutal and illegal actions. Its not unchristian to be in the military or police force. Doing those things in fact, are some of the most Christian things an individual or country can do.

By the way, the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey was a completely different situation from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. There is no parallel there. Turkey is an important US Ally and actually provided the USA with lots of military support as does Greece. Oh and Bush's Axis of Evil is of course, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Considering those countries actions, it would be difficult to disagree.

[Zoomerang96]

Originally posted by STING2

The USA is about increasing the security of others and protecting innocent life, not taking it.

you dont really think im going to buy that, do you?

i see where your coming from. you have evidence to support your beliefs. i simply do not agree with just about any of it. its the way it goes.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by Discoteque
And doesn't GWB have some of the highest overall ratings of *any* president *ever*according to some polls?

something tells me this doesn't necessarily have to do with his intelligence, at least as far as some are concerned.

i've just now read the entire thread and i'd say i pretty much agree with danospano and zoomerang.

lately i'm just so sick of america in general. i wish i could move out of the country. all in due time.