Dumb Canada Comment

Further quote from the Arrogant Worms song "Proud to be Canadian":

We won't say that we're better, it's just that we're less worse.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/arrogant-worms/34481.htm

1. The only reason the inspections were moving at all is because of the military build-up in that region.

2. If the rest of the world had played along with the bluff, Saddam may have been more obliging. Instead, the rest of the world pussy footed around taking action, Saddam saw how divided the world was, and he continued to play it.

To sum up, the military action was only necessary because the rest of the world had other motives (i.e. France & Germany) or don't know how to bluff (i.e. bleeding heart liberals).

1. Agree absolutely.

2. bullshit

Nothing in your extensive writings on this subject has yet come together to form a defensible reason to have started the war. There is a clear disconnect between the initial stated motives (disarmament via 1441) and the final admission at the onset of war (regime change). While I agree with their wish to have a fresh regime, there is no defensible rationale that can support their claimed right to impose it.

Pete wrote:

2. bullshit

Nothing in your extensive writings on this subject has yet come together to form a defensible reason to have started the war. There is a clear disconnect between the initial stated motives (disarmament via 1441) and the final admission at the onset of war (regime change). While I agree with their wish to have a fresh regime, there is no defensible rationale that can support their claimed right to impose it.

Because they felt it has been proven that the only way to ensure disarmenment was through regime change. No other method of paperwork or inspections could adequately assure anyone of complete co-operation and disarmenment. How long would you have allowed the status quo to continue? 30 days? 120 days? Indefinitely? If either of the formers, what happens when that time is up? Do you give another deadline? If the latter, who is picking up the billions to station the 250,000 troops in the region that are the only reason there is any co-operation? How do you placate the "Arab street" who ain't so keen on Western military in their midst?

Its no wonder we have no allies in this war; especially the Canadians. We killed more of them In Afghanistan than the Taliban did. And look at the first Gulf War, we killed more allied troops than the Iraqis did. Gulf War II, so far we've killed 1 Iraqi taxi driver and 12 Brits.

At this rate, Saddam and his army will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in about 4 months.

What a dumb war.

Pete wrote:

1. Agree absolutely.

2. bullshit

Nothing in your extensive writings on this subject has yet come together to form a defensible reason to have started the war. There is a clear disconnect between the initial stated motives (disarmament via 1441) and the final admission at the onset of war (regime change). While I agree with their wish to have a fresh regime, there is no defensible rationale that can support their claimed right to impose it.

There is a defensible rationale for regime change... You may not agree with it, however. Here it is:

1441 and many other resolutions promised "serious consequences" under Section VII if Iraq did not comply. "Serious consequences" can be interpreted to mean regime change, especially when the only way to to ensure that Iraq completely disarms and abides by all UN resolutions it to remove Saddam. He has proven over the past 20+ years that he will not abide by UN Resolutions. So, in order for Iraq to be in complete compliance, Saddam needs to leave. Pete, you can disagree with that assessment, but it is a "defensible rationale" for regime change. Additionally, remember that the US is still legally at war with Iraq since 1991 since no peace treaty was signed... only a cease-fire which was dependent on Iraq fully complying with all UN Resolutions.

WAR PROTESTOR wrote:

Its no wonder we have no allies in this war; especially the Canadians. We killed more of them In Afghanistan than the Taliban did. And look at the first Gulf War, we killed more allied troops than the Iraqis did. Gulf War II, so far we've killed 1 Iraqi taxi driver and 12 Brits.

At this rate, Saddam and his army will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in about 4 months.

What a dumb war.

I can't believe I'm going to reply, but that post is nonsense...

There were way more than 4 Canadians who were killed on September 11, 2001.

Regarding the first Gulf War, we won and sustained very few casualties by the enemy because our war plan worked and thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendered.

Most observers would be very pleased if we don't have to kill any Iraqis in order to bring about regime change and therefore rid Iraq of banned WMDs.

Asterix,

your second and third points (the cost and placation of disgruntled Arabs) are secondary considerations in this debate. I was in support of an accelerated inspection schedule with specific targets to demonstrate compliance, backed by the threat of force in the event it was actually merited. But of course we already had this discussion, and that was my stated position a few weeks ago.

Good post DougC,

War Protestor is insane with that post.

Jesse Squire wrote:

Government policy in Canada reflects a different attitude; there is in fact less gun control north of the border, and their national health care expresses a belief that the upper-middle and upper classes should not automatically get better treatment simply because they have more money.

Actually upper and middle class Canadians get better treatment too. The only difference is that they might have to come across the border to the US to buy it. Either way, money can buy better medical treatment. Money is the power to buy things you want. There is nothing wrong, illegal or immoral to have more money than someone else or to be willing to spend that money for better treatment, it's a shame the advocates of socialized medicine cannot accept this principle.

Doug,

"the past 20+ years" is irrelevant in judging his compliance with 1441, which included the only current real test of whether or not Iraq was satisfactorily disarmed. The measurement process in 1441 was unfortunately too loose, in that deadlines for specific goals were not included. Neverthless, the test of whether or not the resolution was working lies with the reports of the chief inspectors. They believed the process was working well.

There was no reason to initiate war.

Guess what? I can't believe I'm responding to your moronic post either!

"There were way more than 4 Canadians who were killed on September 11, 2001."

And what exactly does that have to do with us bombing Iraq to hell? There wasn't a sinle Iraqi involved in the 9/11 attacks.

"Regarding the first Gulf War, we won and sustained very few casualties by the enemy because our war plan worked and thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendered."

If we won, what are we doing back there? If we won why is Saddam still in power while our CIC back then is playing golf in Kennebunkport? We may have killed a lot of Iraqis, but the fact remains that we also killed more of our allies than the Iraqis did. (We also destroyed the lives of thousands of our own troops by using depleted uranium shells and causing Gulf War Syndrome)

"Most observers would be very pleased if we don't have to kill any Iraqis in order to bring about regime change and therefore rid Iraq of banned WMDs."

Most observers have already stated that this war is illegal and immoral, thats why there are only troops from 3 countries in the world involved.

Pete wrote:

Asterix,

your second and third points (the cost and placation of disgruntled Arabs) are secondary considerations in this debate. I was in support of an accelerated inspection schedule with specific targets to demonstrate compliance, backed by the threat of force in the event it was actually merited. But of course we already had this discussion, and that was my stated position a few weeks ago.

Pete,

Ok, so they are secondary. What about the primary? You stated there was a diconnect between 1441 and war. So then what alternative do you suggest? Iraq was given a deadline to comply with 1441 and they failed to do so. What deadline would you impose? What would you do when this deadline arrived and they had failed to fully and completely disarm? If no deadline, do you propose the continuation of inspections back by force indefinitely, so long as "progress" is being made?

That is where the connection comes in. The UNSC referred to them as "serious consequences", even if some tried to re-write the dictionary after the fact.

Such a statement displays a lack of understanding of military operations. War is never clean or surgical. When a large number of people are throwing around a large quantity of high explosives, things will inevitably go wrong at some time. This is not to excuse such events, as everything possible should be done to minimize their occurance. Have a look at "friendly fire" deaths in past conflicts. More were often killed in a single day in WWI or II than in the entire GW I. The only reason they are now noticed is because of the overwhelming superiority to the enemy such that deaths from that quarter have been drastically reduced.

Stating a war is illegal does not make it so. What makes it illegal? Only one country has ever bothered to seek UN "permission" before going to war. Was the NATO action in saving Muslim's in Kosovo illegal?

Given that the reason the shooting stopped in 1991 was not because of a formal peace treaty, but rather the Iraqi assurances they would disarm, continuing that conflict under further UN resolutions is far more legal than anything you can name from the last 60 years.

Immorality is in the eye of the beholder. Given the choice between the morality of Saddam (if it even exists) and that of the free Western world, my choice is obvious.

Asterix you can throw around all the military jargon you want but the fact remains, each time we've gone to war alongside allies in the past dozen years, we have killed more of them than the enemy ever has.

WAR PROTESTOR wrote:

Asterix you can throw around all the military jargon you want but the fact remains, each time we've gone to war alongside allies in the past dozen years, we have killed more of them than the enemy ever has.

And you are completely missing my point. I'm not stating that friendly fire incidents haven't happened, I explained they are a fact of war and we attempt to minimize them as much as possible. The West has become so good at avoiding threats from the bad guys, that what once was a relatively minor statistic, suddenly becomes significant.

This is probably a bad analogy, but when you get in your car to drive to work, you don't plan on smashing yourself up. Yet accidents happen every day with cars and people die. We do whatever we can to minimize risks: wear seatbelts, post speed limits, slow down in bad weather, don't drink and drive. But despite those actions, we are still dieing in car crashes, whether our own fault or someone elses.

Have you ever said "it's not worth my getting seriously maimed just to drive to the movies, so I won't go"?

"Friendly fire isn't."

... i'm more lost than usual. trying to follow this thread. Someone said "Asterix you can throw around all the military jargon you want ..." In my most diplomatic way ... i'd state that i can't find any 'military jargon', then ask wha up? I have zip, zero, nada military experience or familiarity - but I can't find 'military jargon'. Seems pretty straightforward and pedestrian in jargon area. Am I missing (or missed) something? I guess this is a 'style not substance' post. But seems to fuel the ...

WAR PROTESTOR, you didn't answer the second part of Asterix's comments. How do you determine that the war is legal? So, you and Barbara Streistand think the war is illegal therefore it is illegal. The UN? You don't raise bloody hell about Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN for 12 years, but when the US goes around the UN, it's unthinkable.

You spend all this energy trashing the US, but probably not 1/100th of the same energy protesting against Saddam.

Asterix,

you know full well 1441 contained no deadline. The only deadline was the ridiculous 48 hours that Bush imposed, and it wasn't tied to disarmament or 1441, it was tied to Saddam leaving.