# Do Your Part to STOP War!!!



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

For all those within the Toronto area, get out there!! Let's do our part. 

PEACE MARCH AND RALLY - TORONTO 
FEBRUARY 15th, 2003 
YONGE & DUNDAS 
1:00 PM.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Right on, Alec - make some noise, amigo!

Wish I could be there with ya... but will be at the Halifax event, for sure!


M


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Amen, Brother. Will be there with you in spirit. Not sure what is planned for St.John's.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...get out there and make some _noise_! March around and shout slogans...who knows? it might have some effect, after all.

Besides, all that marching and shouting will burn off a lot of excess energy and you'll be nice and sleepy when nap time comes.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

Wow... guess I'll bring the tye-dyed shirts and headbands. I'm not really into mass demonstration myself.

I'd rather sign a petition or e-mail politicians.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

I'm sorry, but I am against anti war marches.
Why? Because as soon as some country drops a bomb on us for whatever reason, everybody in that march would be changing their tune very quickly.
I am not pro war by any means, and I wish we never had to resort to war as an answer, but their going to war wether your protesting or not, it's sad but true.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDaddy, in 1965, I marched with 12 other people against the war in Vietnam. It made the local paper, on the front page no less! In 1968, I marched with 300,000 other folks in front of the UN, also against the war in Vietnam, and it too made the front page, of the New York Times. Marching might not have put an end to the war in Vietnam, nor might it end any war, but I dread the day when we are not allowed to peacefully march and openly express our points of view. One of the most dramatic pictures I have ever seen, other than the earthrise picture from the moon, was the picture of the lone young man from China standing in front of a tank. That, in my opinion, was a "profile in courage".


----------



## buck (Jan 10, 2003)

I agree with you dr. g. that picture was one of the most inspiring I have seen. I unfortunately can't make it (i hace to work) but a word of advice... avoid the tear gas... it sucks... got more than my share in quebec city during the FTAA.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree. The photo of the lone man in front of the tank was a stirring image. And we should always be allowed to protest our government's actions. (King Cretien's use of pepper spray comes to mind here)

Saddam is a real problem, though...

.....It's better to have a quick and decisive action to remove this psychopath (I don't think it will turn out to be much of a "war" at all) than to leave him be, and hope he doesn't wreak any additional havoc. It also sends a very strong message to other potential whackjobs out there that it is _not_ open season on the innocents. 

Terrorism is unnacceptable in this modern day. Financing and helping terrorism is equally unacceptable...and will be dealt with, swiftly and decisively.

And all the "marching for peace" and shouting of slogans will not affect the perpetrators of these evils. It just slows down the removal of them and their threat to our peaceful existence.

You're just buying them time. Think about that.... while you're out marching.


----------



## 8thDegreeSavage (Dec 3, 2002)

Here is agreat piece on Chomsky.

It ties into macnutts comment on "Quick and decisive action"
http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc1043.html


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

I will think of you today. I was at the G8 in Calgary last year. What an amazing experience. I have a ton of audio from it somewhere in this mess of mine. 
Don't let the negitivity get you down, peace marches are what this country is about IMHO. Why, because we're still allowed. It is our right, so whether it helps or not is neither here nor there. The fact that people like you are out there contributing makes all the difference. Cheers to you!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Timmer, I was a delegate from New York State at the Democratic Party's convention in Chicago. I supported Eugene McCarthy when he ran for president in 1968. I was one of the peaceful demonstrators who got caught between the police and the radical fringe mob that incited the police to "come out swinging". Nine years, and four university degrees later, I found myself teaching at Memorial University of Newfoundland in St.John's. 

In a way, I miss living in the US. Everyone thought that I was crazy when, at a hockey game in Calgary over Christmas, I sang both the US national anthem as well as O Canada. I don't have a good voice, but I have a loud voice, and you could hear my "gave proof through the night..." throughout the Saddledome.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A most interesting Chomsky link. I heard him talk about transformational grammar at Harvard when he still was a practicing linguist.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Dr.G.
While in Calgary I found myself caught in a scuffle that I was sure would end up in a bad way. Thankfully it did not. 
It was really interesting to watch everyone (both sides) and their actions/reactions to the entire situation. As well, it is a unique feeling to be crushed or shoved around by an angry mob.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Crushed and shoved to a New Yorker is merely an average rush hour commute on the subway. When someone is swinging a club at your head, then it becomes unnerving, to say the least.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Never mind clubs.

What about what happend to those poor students at Kent State? Not so long ago.

Killed by their own gov't for speaking out against war.

Re: the Chomsky article - anyone notice that the "commie" sub commander disobeyed his orders to fire his nukes even though he was fired upon by U.S. warships?

Kinda' ironic, ain't it?

Below is satire:

Damn commie! If he had fired his nukes, we could have settled this issues once and for all !!! 

Small price to pay for millions of deaths and barren land, but "better dead than red", as they used to say in the Pentagon.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Mississauga wrote:
*For all those within the Toronto area, get out there!! Let's do our part.*

Wow. One of the groups promoting, if not sponsoring, this march is TCASWI (Toronto Committee Against Sanctions and War on Iraq), and as far as I can tell they're _way_ out in left field. Take, for example, TCASWI is calling for (among other things):

<ul>[*]That Canada end its participation in the naval blockade against Iraq[*]That Canada immediately end its support for sanctions and bombings[*]That Canada oppose any new war on Iraq[*]That Canada recognize its responsibility and the harm inflicted on the Iraqi population and promote the creation of a fund for compensation and reconstruction of Iraq[/list]

Apparently Saddam Hussein is not at fault for _anything_ that's happened in or to Iraq in the last thirteen years. Whodathunkit?

What's also interesting is that the domain has only been around for the last month or so (which leads me to believe that the group has been around for about that long, too). Something about it doesn't sit well with me.

<pre>[email protected]:~/Source$ whois -h whois.opensrs.net tcaswi.org

Registrant:
comsyn
3-1750 The Queensway
522
Toronto, ON M9C 5H5
CA

Domain Name: TCASWI.ORG

Administrative Contact:
Adhami, Ayesha [email protected]
3-1750 The Queensway
522
Toronto, ON M9C 5H5
CA
416-899-2264
Fax: 416-753-7207

Technical Contact:
Gwiazdowski, Rad [email protected]
3-1750 The Queensway
522
Toronto, ON M9C 5H5
CA
416-899-2264
Fax: 416-753-7207
</pre>
...
<pre>
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 11-Jan-2003.
Record expires on 11-Jan-2004.
Record Created on 11-Jan-2003.
</pre>


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Me either! Well-meaning, but severely naive, protesters have been used by every fringe group known to man, in order to further their own hidden agenda.

This looks a lot like the same old same old. Wonder who's paying the bills?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Say...here's an idea! Why not change the theme of this thread to "Do your part to STOP the stupidity!"

We could check out who is organising the big protests (and who is funding them), discern their motives, and then get everyone to show up and protest _THEM_ for a change! Loudly proclaim, with signs and chanting, the hidden agenda and the manipulation of a naive public!

Now _that's_ a cause I could get all worked up about!


----------



## Rock Lobster (May 15, 2002)

I may be naive, but could possibly be wrong (or stupid?) about this group's desire to exclude Canada from U.S. warmongering in Iraq? It sounds like a good idea to me (and, judging from the Chomsky article, about 90% of the rest of the world) and I know I am certainly not "out in left field".


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Rock lobster, your not nieve. Your right on. Canada should without a doubt be flipping the US the perverbial bird on this one and anything else in the future for that matter. Realistically we can't though as some of us are quickly learning here in B.C. from the softwood lumber "sanction" that our brothers and sisters are living with.


----------



## Rock Lobster (May 15, 2002)

... and what does the length of time a protest group has been in existence got to do with anything? How long has the U.S. been actively threatening this particular war? Two months? Does this make their cause any less viable or just?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Rock Lobster wrote:
*... and what does the length of time a protest group has been in existence got to do with anything? How long has the U.S. been actively threatening this particular war? Two months?*

The US has been threatening to go to war for a lot longer than two months; it's just become blatantly obvious that it's going to happen in the last couple of months.

*Does this make their cause any less viable or just?*

It makes me wonder what their motives are, since they're not just decrying the war, they're decrying sactions, too. If the doves can speculate about the motives of the US in this war, surely the hawks can speculate about the motives of the peace movement, no?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Rock Lobster wrote:
*I may be naive, but could possibly be wrong (or stupid?) about this group's desire to exclude Canada from U.S. warmongering in Iraq?*

It's not the desire to exclude Canada from the upcoming war in Iraq (although, really, what sort of contribution could we make) that strikes me as weird, but rather the idea of lifting sanctions (which were implemented to stunt Iraq's ability to produce WMDs), and the idea that we should pay "damages" to Iraq.

*It sounds like a good idea to me (and, judging from the Chomsky article, about 90% of the rest of the world) and I know I am certainly not "out in left field".*

_Argumentum ad numerum_.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfpoole, rather than a "appeal to the numbers", Bush seems to be relying upon the emotional passion of people in making his arguement re a war with Iraq (i.e.,"argumentum ad populum") and "argumentum ad baculum", which is using any type of threat, be it an explicit or implicit physical or non-physical threat, in order to gain agreement of the people in the US.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Dr.G. wrote:
*jfpoole, rather than a "appeal to the numbers", Bush seems to be relying upon the emotional passion of people in making his arguement re a war with Iraq (i.e.,"argumentum ad populum")*

I wasn't referring to Bush when I said _argumentum ad numerum_, but rather Rock Lobster's assertion that since "90% of the world" was against America, then America must be wrong.

* and "argumentum ad baculum", which is using any type of threat, be it an explicit or implicit physical or non-physical threat, in order to gain agreement of the people in the US.*

I don't think Bush is using _argumentum ad baculum_, since the threat (that Iraq might use WMD against the US or its allies) _is_ related to the proposition (that the US must invade Iraq in order to ensure it does not develop WMD) in this case. _Argumentum ad baculum_ only applies if they're unrelated (e.g., vote for Bob or I'll punch you in the nose).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfpoole, you may "go to the head of the class". Teaching the prof a thing or two was one thing I thrived upon in university. It did not happen often, but I shall be the first to say "Thanks for the lesson".


----------



## Rock Lobster (May 15, 2002)

I think the numeralogical point that Chomsky was trying to make was that in most of the so-called democratic nations of the world, including the U.S., the actual constituants (the many) are opposed to a new war, but the politicians (the few) are bulldozing ahead with the idea anyway (apparantly whether the UN says it's OK or not...). Canada seems to be unfortunately falling into this category as well, already preparing troops for war. Scary.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rock Lobster, re Canada, it is seems as if this is the case. One only wonders what will enable Canada to maintain its own foreign policy. Living in "the shadow of the elephant" is no easy task.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Rock Lobster wrote:
*I think the numeralogical point that Chomsky was trying to make was that in most of the so-called democratic nations of the world, including the U.S., the actual constituants (the many) are opposed to a new war, but the politicians (the few) are bulldozing ahead with the idea anyway (apparantly whether the UN says it's OK or not...).*

The latest poll numbers I've seen put American support for a war against Iraq at 66% (and 51% even if the UN opposes the war) (source).

I haven't found recent numbers for Canada, but I'd imagine they'd be lower.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*Mississauga wrote:
For all those within the Toronto area, get out there!! Let's do our part.

Wow. One of the groups promoting, if not sponsoring, this march is TCASWI (Toronto Committee Against Sanctions and War on Iraq), and as far as I can tell they're way out in left field. Take, for example, TCASWI is calling for (among other things):

<ul><LI>That Canada end its participation in the naval blockade against Iraq<LI>That Canada immediately end its support for sanctions and bombings<LI>That Canada oppose any new war on Iraq<LI>That Canada recognize its responsibility and the harm inflicted on the Iraqi population and promote the creation of a fund for compensation and reconstruction of Iraq[/list]

Apparently Saddam Hussein is not at fault for anything that's happened in or to Iraq in the last thirteen years. Whodathunkit?

What's also interesting is that the domain has only been around for the last month or so (which leads me to believe that the group has been around for about that long, too). Something about it doesn't sit well with me.

<pre>[email protected]:~/Source$ whois -h whois.opensrs.net tcaswi.org

Registrant:
comsyn
3-1750 The Queensway
522
Toronto, ON M9C 5H5
CA

Domain Name: TCASWI.ORG

Administrative Contact:
Adhami, Ayesha [email protected]
3-1750 The Queensway
522
Toronto, ON M9C 5H5
CA
416-899-2264
Fax: 416-753-7207

Technical Contact:
Gwiazdowski, Rad [email protected]
3-1750 The Queensway
522
Toronto, ON M9C 5H5
CA
416-899-2264
Fax: 416-753-7207
</pre>...
<pre>
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 11-Jan-2003.
Record expires on 11-Jan-2004.
Record Created on 11-Jan-2003.
</pre>*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK jfPoole. Why don't you start a rally for War rather than peace. Put you money where your mouth is?

You could walk around with signs that say "Starve Arabs because their Leader is a Loser" "Bomb Muslims for more Oil" " Bomb anything that isn't White" "Let the Muslim Kids Starve"

Let me know when you get this movement off the ground. I'll bet you get some real scholars involved.


----------



## Rock Lobster (May 15, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The latest poll numbers I've seen put American support for a war against Iraq at 66% (and 51% even if the UN opposes the war) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Alas, they may be falling victim to the intense propaganda the Bush administration seemes to be throwing out!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*OK jfPoole. Why don't you start a rally for War rather than peace. Put you money where your mouth is?*

I've written a letter to my MP stating my support for military action against Iraq if Iraq does not fully comply with UN Security Council resolutions; I'm not sure what else I should do?

*You could walk around with signs that say "Starve Arabs because their Leader is a Loser" "Bomb Muslims for more Oil" " Bomb anything that isn't White" "Let the Muslim Kids Starve"*

Funny, I thought it was Saddam Hussein who was letting his own people starve? There's been a oil for food programme in place for a while, which should provide for more than enough food for the Iraqi people.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure what else I should do?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Head south of the border and go to the first recruiting office you see and sign up.
Bon Voyage


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*Head south of the border and go to the first recruiting office you see and sign up.*

I don't think they'd have me; I'm a computer geek, and, well, let's just say I'm not in as good of shape as I could be


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I have planned on attending the rally in Toronto but I must admit some interesting questions have been raised in this thread. 
I'm questioning who exactly are these profesional protesters and who is funding them. I'd like to know what THEIR agenda is, besides stopping the war.

I'm not a blind do-gooder and am well aware of the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam. My reasons for not wanting war are self serving.

I fear an escalation of events. I sure hope you are right, macnutt.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*Saddam is, indeed, the reason for the children who are starving in Iraq. He has chosen to built another forty or so Presidential Palaces...to go along with the twenty-seven that he had before the first Gulf War..and to buy lots of weapons, instead of feeding the poor children of his own country.

He's a crafty sod, that one. He knew that there would be soft-hearted people in the western world who would see the sad plight of the children and say" look what the sanctions are doing to the babies!"

This way, he could manipulate us from within to drop the sanctions.

And some of you out there are buying it ....hook line and sinker.  

Wake up!

He got where he is by being a ruthless murderer and a shameless con-man. If you are truly concerned about the plight of the children of Iraq (or anyone else within striking distance, for that matter) then why are you defending this madman? Why not demand his removal? He is NOT the legitimate head of Iraq! He is the most pertinent danger that anyone in that country faces right now. 

His rapid dissappearance should be the top priority of anyone who professes to care about Iraqi children.

He caused a great many of them to die, long before any sanctions were imposed by the west, after all. Why do you believe that removal of the sanctions...as opposed to the removal of Saddam...would be a preferable course of action?

And I don't, for one minute, think that there will be any sort of "massive bombing campaign against innocent Iraqis" by the US and it's allies. The attack is against Saddam....not the people of Iraq. Once he is gone, the fighting will stop on both sides.

I believe that this will happen very soon after the declaration of war by the US. Possibly within the first hours. Things have changed greatly since the Gulf War, technology has progressed, and the average Iraqi soldier is even more aware of how hopelessly outclassed they are than they were the first time around.

If you remember, back then they were surrendering in droves to anything that moved. It will be an even more one-sided "battle" this time out.

Don't believe me? Then print this reply out and feel free to call me a liar in a month or two, when it's all over. Be prepared, as well, to hear all about Saddam's terrible treatment of his own people (especially the children) once the truth is revealed by his own former henchmen after he is gone.

Then, you might ask yourselves....what the heck was I thinking when I said "let's not make war....let's leave him be"

Don't say I didn't tell you so.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's being gulable here?


Let me guess. You get all your info and news from CNN. You are being duped and fed BS. Believe what you will, get on your knees and worship the American Machine at work folks because the above post is as example of how the American propaganda machine can turn a peace loving Canadian into a believer in all that is American.

Follow the great American Murders into a war for oil and after that, world domination. The lines starts here. Get your rifles and go kill some people of colour for oil. It's OK don't worry, there are not really people, they are not white.

Soon to follow-"Canadians are controlling to much of the Worlds fresh water. The Prime Minister is killing many of his own people. That country is part of the Axis of evil. They are poisoning the fresh water flowing into America." Watch Colin Powell tonight on CNN. He is going to UN with maps, charts and some ariel photos. "Canada must be stopped."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Originally posted by macnutt:
"Saddam is, indeed, the reason for the children who are starving
in Iraq. He has chosen to built another forty or so Presidential Palaces...to go along with the twenty-seven that he had before
the first Gulf War..and to buy lots of weapons, instead of feeding
the poor children of his own country."

This fact angers me as much as almost anything about the entire Iraq situation. I cannot speak to the accuracy of the number of palaces that Saddam has under his control, but it is a large number, given the times inspectors have entered and searched these grounds. Whenever CNN shows a hospital with children and old people suffering, my heart goes out to them, yet with the knowledge that the US embargo is an indirect causal factor of part of this situation, but the current situation is a direct result of money being spent for "things" rather than to help meet the basic needs of the people of Iraq.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Saddam is, indeed, the reason for the children who are starving in Iraq. He has chosen to built another forty or so Presidential Palaces...to go along with the twenty-seven that he had before the first Gulf War..and to buy lots of weapons, instead of feeding the poor children of his own country.

He's a crafty sod, that one. He knew that there would be soft-hearted people in the western world who would see the sad plight of the children and say" look what the sanctions are doing to the babies!"

This way, he could manipulate us from within to drop the sanctions.

And some of you out there are buying it ....hook line and sinker.  

Wake up!

He got where he is by being a ruthless murderer and a shameless con-man. If you are truly concerned about the plight of the children of Iraq (or anyone else within striking distance, for that matter) then why are you defending this madman? Why not demand his removal? He is NOT the legitimate head of Iraq! He is the most pertinent danger that anyone in that country faces right now. 

His rapid dissappearance should be the top priority of anyone who professes to care about Iraqi children.

He caused a great many of them to die, long before any sanctions were imposed by the west, after all. Why do you believe that removal of the sanctions...as opposed to the removal of Saddam...would be a preferable course of action?

And I don't, for one minute, think that there will be any sort of "massive bombing campaign against innocent Iraqis" by the US and it's allies. The attack is against Saddam....not the people of Iraq. Once he is gone, the fighting will stop on both sides.

I believe that this will happen very soon after the declaration of war by the US. Possibly within the first hours. Things have changed greatly since the Gulf War, technology has progressed, and the average Iraqi soldier is even more aware of how hopelessly outclassed they are than they were the first time around.

If you remember, back then they were surrendering in droves to anything that moved. It will be an even more one-sided "battle" this time out.

Don't believe me? Then print this reply out and feel free to call me a liar in a month or two, when it's all over. Be prepared, as well, to hear all about Saddam's terrible treatment of his own people (especially the children) once the truth is revealed by his own former henchmen after he is gone.

Then, you might ask yourselves....what the _heck_ was I thinking when I said "let's not make war....let's leave him be"

Don't say I didn't tell you so.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*Follow the great American Murders into a war for oil and after that, world domination. The lines starts here. Get your rifles and go kill some people of colour for oil.*

If the upcoming war in Iraq was _just_ about getting access to Iraqi oil, wouldn't a far cheaper solution be to simply lift the sanctions against Iraq? 

*It's OK don't worry, there are not really people, they are not white.*

Why do you keep mentioning this? Do you think people that support the war in Iraq think that people who aren't white are sub-human? That you think people like me think it's okay to kill people who aren't Anglo-Saxon? That's insulting.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*Why do you keep mentioning this? Do you think people that support the war in Iraq think that people who aren't white are sub-human? *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do I keep saying this? It's an observation I can't help but make.


How many white Anglo-Saxons were killed by the USA in

VietNam

The Gulf War

Nicaragua

El Salvador

Do you see a pattern yet?

Afghanistan

Grenada

Somalia

Panama

None that I recall.

Did anybody lift a finger in Rwanda (Black People) or East Timor (Brown People)? No!

That is why I keep bringing it up. If Indonesia had done to New Zealand what they did in East Timor the Americans would have been all over it. 

It is not meant to insult you personally. If you're insulted , you shouldn't be. You should be embarrassed.

G


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*How many white Anglo-Saxons were killed by the USA in...*

World War I or World War II? A fair number, I'd imagine (Germans are white, are they not?)


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*Garyola wrote:
How many white Anglo-Saxons were killed by the USA in...

World War I or World War II? A fair number, I'd imagine (Germans are white, are they not?)*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Obviously! 
Let's try to keep this to recent memory. If you want to start going back we could but the servers here only have so much space. Dragging the World Wars into this is silly. I'm talking about US Imperialism not the history of the World.

If going back is what you need for proof just look at slavery and the North American Indian.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Garyola, your are right on. Unfortunately you will run up against a wall when you point out the obvious here at ehmac. Some here I find are so closed minded its wrenching to say the least. Just when I thought our side of the planet was becoming a place of awarness. Do not be discouraged though. There are more people who see what we see in here then you think, it just takes a little more to get them to speak up. So cheers to you for coming in with your thoughts.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

As for the first and second world wars. Two different issues all together here. And if I must prove a point I will. Japan, enough said. Pretty sure a few died there.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by timmer:
*Garyola, your are right on. Unfortunately you will run up against a wall when you point out the obvious here at ehmac. Some here I find are so closed minded its wrenching to say the least. Just when I thought our side of the planet was becoming a place of awarness. Do not be discouraged though. There are more people who see what we see in here then you think, it just takes a little more to get them to speak up. So cheers to you for coming in with your thoughts. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the welcome, Timmer.









Another Canadian Mac fellow gave me this site, so I thought I would check it out. It's nice to be amongst fellow Canucks, online.

It just breaks my heart to see so many Canadians getting on the American war wagon. It is too easy to sit back and support this aggression when you don't have to fight it or be on the receiving end of it. If we just looked around at our own neighborhoods and see the people we live with and think about the fact that planes are going to drop bombs on the relatives of those people in a far away place, far removed from our comfortable homes and situations. Then somehow justify that it is for their own good. Sad, very sad.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
*As for the first and second world wars. Two different issues all together here.*

Garyola was asserting that the US only gets into wars to kill non-white people; WW1 and WW2 seem to prove the opposite.

*And if I must prove a point I will. Japan, enough said. Pretty sure a few died there.*

I also seem to recall that Japan brought the US into WW2 by bombing Pearl Harbor (a sneak attack, I might add), so if you're going to blame anyone for Japanese casualties in WW2, blame the Japanese.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*Let's try to keep this to recent memory.*

I'd call World War 2 recent memory; my grandfather (who's still alive) fought in Africa and Italy in WW2.

*Dragging the World Wars into this is silly.*

I'd also say dragging other wars into this is silly as well.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
*Some here I find are so closed minded its wrenching to say the least.*

Pot. Kettle. Black.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*Garyola wrote:
Let's try to keep this to recent memory.

I'd call World War 2 recent memory; my grandfather (who's still alive) fought in Africa and Italy in WW2.

Dragging the World Wars into this is silly.

I'd also say dragging other wars into this is silly as well.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes yes you win. You are correct. Who am I to argue with someone who had a relative in a war once. The American government always does the right thing.

Good bye!


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The American government always does the right thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they don't, they are human and make mistakes. They aren't perfect. Since its a democracy, we are able to discuss this


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, they don't, they are human and make mistakes. They aren't perfect. Since its a democracy, we are able to discuss this [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what is your point. That America allows me to express my opinion because America is a democracy. HA! That does deserve one of these  because that is a joke. I'm Canadian. I live in Canada. I don't bow to the American way like some of the sheep on this forum do. I formulate opinions based on the widest range of information I can find and understand. To call the USA a democracy is also a joke. Only a small percent of the population votes because the rest will never get representation no matter who they vote for so they don't bother voting.(much like our own country) Bush didn't win an election he stole it. The fix was in. The people who think that election was on the up and up are the same people that send money to the Nigerian scammers we all get that spam from. Democracy ha! that makes me laugh. 

G


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Theoretically it is a democracy, although their system has developed several flaws to do with elitism, unfortuantly. Although they will go forward with the war no matter what happens, it should count for somethng that Americans are able to protest it and also that the US doesn't bully Chrietien into stopping us from protesting...


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*I don't bow to the American way like some of the sheep on this forum do.*

It amuses me that the doves in this forum seem to think us hawks are mindless automatons who get all of our information from CNN and the US government[1]. Apparently they think supporting the war in Iraq means checking your brain at the door and supporting everything America does without question.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I've been reading about the situation in Iraq for ages (and from a number of sources, too, not just CNN ), and I've come to the conclusion that unless Hussein suddenly starts co-operating fully with the UN in the next couple of weeks, then a war is going to be the only way to stop him from pursuing his various WMD programs. Plus, I think that removing Saddam from power is in the best interests of the Iraqi populace, even if it means a few of them will die during the conflict.

[1] It's kind of weird; I've read a lot of pro- and anti-war copy over the past few months, and the anti-war crowd seems to resort to insulting the pro-war crowd more often than not (and the pro-war crowd seems quite restrained at times). I wonder why that is?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> [1] It's kind of weird; I've read a lot of pro- and anti-war copy over the past few months, and the anti-war crowd seems to resort to insulting the pro-war crowd more often than not (and the pro-war crowd seems quite restrained at times). I wonder why that is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any figures to back up that note?

I noticed that nobody even responded to my post that Colin Powell quoted a British "intelligence" report that the Brits plaigirised (and poorly at that) from a California grad student.

Further confirmed by CBC news.

I guess lying is ok if you are a 'hawk.'?
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html 

re: Japanese deaths during WWII

So let's review. The U.S. leads a coalition to stop Iraq from using or creating WMD. But, the U.S. itself used WMD. The only country in the world to ever have used nuclear weapons by the way.

Can you really justify WMD being used by anyone? 

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians died during those 2 nuclear attacks. Isn't that what the U.S. lead coalition is fighting against?

Please explain.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*Any figures to back up that note?*

It's not something I can quantify; it's just based off of anecdotal experience from the past few months.

*I noticed that nobody even responded to my post that Colin Powell quoted a British "intelligence" report that the Brits plaigirised (and poorly at that) from a California grad student.*

I noticed that post, but didn't comment on it because I didn't have anything to say. Downing St. has admitted parts of the document were plagarized, but from what I've been able to discern the content of the document is still valid.

*So let's review. The U.S. leads a coalition to stop Iraq from using or creating WMD. But, the U.S. itself used WMD. The only country in the world to ever have used nuclear weapons by the way.*

Didn't we discuss this topic a while ago? 

The US did use nuclear weapons on Japan. If the US had instead invaded the Home Islands, the number of casualties would have been much greater (I seem to recall the estimates reaching one or two million on both sides), not to mention the fact the war would've dragged on for at least another year. 

Other nations have used WMD (for example, chemical weapons in World War I), but once they realized how horrible these weapons were, most made agreements to regulate their use. Not Saddam; he has used WMD willy-nilly, both against his own people and the people of other nations. 

*Isn't that what the U.S. lead coalition is fighting against?*

The coalition will be fighting because Iraq has disobeyed a number of UN Security Council resolutions (most of which have told Iraq to stop its WMD programs and to co-operate _fully_ with weapons inspectors).

I'd imagine the US also feels that Iraq, if allowed to develop more deadly WMD, will be a security threat down the road, and is moving to eliminate that threat now, rather than deal with it later.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MaxWell wrote:
*You mean, sorta like your taking comfort in making a sweeping generalization about antiwar types? Oh sure, I see what you mean, totally. (;->))*

Point taken. Chalk my comments up to the frustration I'm feeling from being called a moron continually 

*Few people can take it for long, I agree. Last year I worked with an otherwise sane man whose home is on the outskirts of Acton, but who daily commuted to work in Scarborough... I think if he were to do this for a few more years he's lose all his hair and start to chew on his fingers 'till they were raw and bloody.*

Yeah, I know a number of people doing the drive back and forth between Guelph and Mississauga, and they absolutely hate it. I'm surprised they're still sane 

*Ahh, the old 401... the old Toronto-Windsor stretch has to be one of the deadliest highways in NorthAm.*

I didn't enjoy driving back and forth to Windsor when my sweetie was in Teacher's College at Windsor, that's for sure. Although visiting Detroit was an, um, interesting experience.

*Seems your commute to Waterloo is but a sneeze in comparison. Although I will allow for the distinct possibility that it's getting crowded out there these days and the roads have probably not kept up with the surging traffic.*

Highway 7 is not big enough to cope with the rush-hour traffic between Kitchener/Waterloo and Guelph (it's just two lanes, and it really should be four). Oh, and don't get me started on the Hanlon!

Of course, every other job I've worked I've been able to bike into work, so this whole commuting thing is a new and novel experience. Ah well, if it weren't for the commute I would've had a harder time justifying the purchase of an iPod. 

*I left Guelph in 94 and there's all those new homes which keep springing up like weeds in the south end.*

As far as I'm concerned, the south end is a different city entirely . Can you tell I live in the downtown?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't know about that. On this particular issue (the war on Iraq, at least) I think I'm right and the anti-war types, while their hearts are probably in the right place, are wrong 

This is what I get for getting a degree in Mathematics! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too have a degree in Mathematics but my politics seem somewhat different.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*I too have a degree in Mathematics but my politics seem somewhat different.*

Oh, I was referring to the fact that I think there are right and wrong answers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Oh, I was referring to the fact that I think there are right and wrong answers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange. I learned that, even in mathematics as in life, there are not always correct or incorrect answers. (i.e. life isn't binary.)

Rather, more correct and less correct answers.

Sometimes no answers at all.

Must be the difference in our mathematical training.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*Strange. I learned that, even in mathematics as in life, there are not always correct or incorrect answers. (i.e. life isn't binary.)*

I wasn't implying that life is always binary, nor that there's an answer to everything, just that there are times when it's possible to say "I'm right, you're wrong" (and vice-versa). 

As for how this involves my degree, MaxWell has a point; I've made enough sweeping generalizations for one evening. Feel free to email me if you'd like an explanation.

*Must be the difference in our mathematical training.*

Well, it depends  Where'd you get your degree?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

U of Toronto, class of '83

double major, computer science and mathematics with geology and astronomy courses thrown in for fun


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well...I go away for a day on business, and come back to find that I have been labeled as an automaton. A "sheep" who simply buys the American imperialist propaganda without question. A war monger who waves Old glory and salutes whenever Pres. Bush appears on the telly.   

(don't you just LOVE the way that the left...who say "we should not label people based on their color, beliefs, or religion...goes right ahead and LABELS people?)

Garyola, mississauga, timmer et al...I've got NEWS for ya!

I am a patriotic Canadian who has spent most of his life living and working in foriegn countries (amost thirty years away from Canada). I'm not talking about two weeks at a resort in Cancun....I'm talking about actually living in, and dealing with, the laws and infrastructure (such as it is) in NINE countries on THREE continents. Four Continents, if you count North America...which I have also lived and worked all over, from Ellesmere Island (in the high arctic) to South Texas...from California to offshore Newfoundland (Hibernia). And pretty much everywhere in between.

For LONG periods of time. Months and years. Not days and weeks.

And I have many friends who are STILL in those places. Most are FROM those countries....not expatriate workers like myself. I stay in touch with them....and they keep me abreast of what's happening in those countries. Daily.

I get my data from lots of diverse sources. CNN is only one small part of it.

BTW...of my four closest friends here in Canada, only ONE is the same skin colour and race as myself. And I have considered all of these people my closest friends for more than two decades. I am closer to these friends than I am to my own two brothers. 

And I certainly do _NOT_ appreciate being called a "sheep". I think for myself, and I have formed my perceptions from the sort of varied, and up-close experience with the real world, that most people only read about in books. Or see on TV. I've actually BEEN there and DONE that.

How about you? Get most of your data from.....where? 

Never mind. I can guess. (but I'm not going to "label" you for it. That would be stooping a bit)

Now...on to the rest...

War is bad business. No doubt about it at all. A last resort, to be sure.

But what I don't understand is why some of you out there insist on leaving Saddam be. Do you hate the people of Iraq (especially the children that he is starving to death) so much that you wish to see this horror continue? Do you hate the Israelis so much that you want to see him continue to fund and arm the suicide bombers? Do you revel in the carnage that is produced when a Palestinian blows himself up in a crowded pizza parlour or maims dozens of innocent people on a bus? (BTW-Arabs are frequently among the dead and wounded in these incidents. Saddam only pays the 25 thousand dollar bounty for dead Jews. The rest are considered collateral damage).

Do you really want this to continue? If so...why?

Oh...I forgot...it's really all about _oil_...isn't it?

Silly me...I must be a stupid sheep.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> (don't you just LOVE the way that the left...who say "we should not label people based on their color, beliefs, or religion...goes right ahead and LABELS people?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So only the 'left' says we shouldn't label....?

Didn't you just do the same thing?

I guess that anyone who is against war is a leftie? 

Colin Powell was against war for a while. Was he a leftie?

Now when Powell quoted a Brtish "ingelligence" report, that he held in high regard, at the UN, but it was later found out that the report plagiarised the report of a California college student (without any credit and some wording was changed), was he being a 'leftie" or a "rightie?"

I do swing a golf club left (never in anger) but I am right handed.

Perhaps you may wish to explain your definitions of the political 'right' and 'left' just so we all know what you mean.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One last thing about these so called "anti-war" protesters. I came across a good article in one of our major Canadian newspapers today. I haven't asked permission to quote the writer so I shall not name him, but he said it better than I could...

_The anti-war argument, stripped of the fig leaf of inspections, amounts to this: So Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. So he will probably acquire nuclear weapons. So he has made a monkey of the United nations. Even so, the risks of war are too great. Let him keep his terrible armaments, and let's hope we can contain him._

_In the name of "International Law", we will stand by while Saddam defies it. In the name of "regional stability", we will allow a dictator with proven territorial ambitions to acquire unstoppable force. in the name of "the suffering people of Iraq", we will leave them in thrall to the world's most brutal despot._

Saddam is long overdue for removal. More so than any other tyrant on this planet. It should have been done a dozen years ago....a LOT of innocent people, most of them Iraqis, would have been spared if we had removed him then.

Why do you insist upon supporting this murderous psycho? Do you want him to continue? Would you like him to get some truly terrible weapons, while you buy him time? Do you suppose he won't use them, once he has them? 

Darn...I keep forgetting...it's really all about _oil_! And "American Imperialism" It has nothing to do with Saddam and his murderous ways.

Yeah...._right._


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Any writer can be quoted as long as it is not for commercial purposes nor financial gain and as long as proper credit is given to both the publication and the author.

After all you do say it is a major Canadian newspaper. I would think that the writer would appreciate more exposure.

Since it seems like a game, I will guess.

David Frum, National Post?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Michael...go back and read my post. Carefully, this time. Did I label anyone? What label did I use?

And YOU are the only person who has used the term "leftie". I never mentioned it.

Interesting, eh?

You guys sure do like labels.

Wonder why?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Maybe you should read your own posts.

I did copy and paste directly.

The truth shall set you free.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I read and re-read my own posts VERY carefully. Mostly for spelling errors. 

Do you read your own posts after you've hit the "add reply" button?

If so...then I just HAVE to ask....why do you demonise the democracies, and defend the dictators? And why do you insist upon labeling people?

I respectfully await your reply


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt wrote:
*And YOU are the only person who has used the term "leftie". I never mentioned it.*

In an earlier post (on page 5) you wrote:

"(don't you just LOVE the way that the left...who say "we should not label people based on their color, beliefs, or religion...goes right ahead and LABELS people?)"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Guilty as charged JFP...but did I EVER use the term "Leftie"?

That is a label. I do NOT use labels. Ever. Check my posts and my replies. I only refer to citizens of ehMac (or anyone else, for that matter) by using their screen names or their actual names. 

Labels are demeaning and predudicial.

I do not use them.

Check and see for yourself.

I'll wait here.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

So did you use the term "the left" or not?

You never did answer my question as to your definition of political "left" and "right."

I'll be "right" here waiting for an answer.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I referred to the political left, as most journals and newspapers etc. have been doing for...I don't know...about half a century or so. But I NEVER referred to anyone as a "leftie".

You did, Michael. Several times.

Do you like "labels"? I do NOT.

Question here....have I ever called you anything except Michael...or Macspectrum? Did I ever call you by any other name? Have I ever given you a "label"? 

Have I EVER referred to anyone here by anything other than their real name, or their screen name? 

I say again...I do NOT like labels! And I do not understand why the people of this forum who pretend to espouse total equalilty, and claim that labels are WRONG...continue to label people, based on their beliefs or poilitical orientation.

What's next? Labeling based upon skin colour? Religion? Beliefs? Clothing?


I honestly think that, you who are disciples of the opposite end of the political spectrum to me, need to give your collective heads a good shake....and ask yourselves "what am I really doing here? What am I really saying here? Who am I really defending here. And...this is the most important thing...what will be the long term consequences of the cause I am so dedicated to?"

Just a thought. You might just change your tune, when confronted by reality. And when you realise that you are guilty of the very thing you constantly protest against.

Think about it.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I don't want to get tangled up into the politics here but Macnutt is correct to say that he has only used the term "left" and not "leftie." The latter generally refers to one person in a negative light. (This is me being diplomatic with word choice.)

Whether you agree on your politics or not, Macnutt's point about not saying "leftie" was never acknowledged. That's impolite. 

I understand you're both having a heated debate but the communication doesn't seem to be occurring effectively at this point. I'M NOT BLAMING ANYONE AND I'M NOT TAKING SIDES but, perhaps, you both need to stop making accusatory statements. Take deep breaths. . . . and hug. . .







Okay. Maybe not the hugging part.

The reality is that in "left" or "right" viewpoints there's no single "truth" to be found. Human affairs aren't that simple. Everything is partial and contextual. Situations and politics are complicated so the best we can do is keep an open mind, keep talking and try to be civil.

Now play nicely boys.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt wrote:
*Guilty as charged JFP...but did I EVER use the term "Leftie"?*

You haven't used the term "leftie" in this thread, no. I wasn't aware of the distinction being made between "left" and "leftie". Now I think I can blame my math degree


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Just a note to say...








Proud Leftie










M


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

macnutt, I have previously stated that I am anti-war. However, I am certainly in favour of Saddam's removal.

I have the pleasure of working with a young Iraqi fellow and we have had many conversations this past week about the impending war. He is VERY scared for his family but HATES Saddam. He has posed a valid question. Why hasn't someone just assasinated Saddam? He believes it could have been done by now. Is this a too simple answer?
It's his belief that the US is after the oil.

On the question about the plight of the folks living under Saddams rule, his reply was

"Marg, you have no conceivable idea what it is like to live under that sadistic, despot's rule. No one in North America has had to endure that suffering. People don't even dare to think anything bad against Saddam for fear of death. We have freedoms and wealth here (Canada) that are taken for granted but shouldn't be. Saddam must go. Diplomacy will not work. He (Saddam) is an evil despot who believes himself ruler for life."

I don't know what the solution is for these poor people. I truly believe that all out war could create more problems and make the world even more unstable. I think we are treading on a fine line with the muslim world. I seriously fear an escalation of events which quite possibly could get out of control.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*Well...I go away for a day on business, and come back to find that I have been labeled as an automaton. A "sheep" who simply buys the American imperialist propaganda without question. A war monger who waves Old glory and salutes whenever Pres. Bush appears on the telly.   

(don't you just LOVE the way that the left...who say "we should not label people based on their color, beliefs, or religion...goes right ahead and LABELS people?)

Garyola, mississauga, timmer et al...I've got NEWS for ya!

I am a patriotic Canadian who has spent most of his life living and working in foriegn countries (amost thirty years away from Canada). I'm not talking about two weeks at a resort in Cancun....I'm talking about actually living in, and dealing with, the laws and infrastructure (such as it is) in NINE countries on THREE continents. Four Continents, if you count North America...which I have also lived and worked all over, from Ellesmere Island (in the high arctic) to South Texas...from California to offshore Newfoundland (Hibernia). And pretty much everywhere in between.

For LONG periods of time. Months and years. Not days and weeks.

And I have many friends who are STILL in those places. Most are FROM those countries....not expatriate workers like myself. I stay in touch with them....and they keep me abreast of what's happening in those countries. Daily.

I get my data from lots of diverse sources. CNN is only one small part of it.

BTW...of my four closest friends here in Canada, only ONE is the same skin colour and race as myself. And I have considered all of these people my closest friends for more than two decades. I am closer to these friends than I am to my own two brothers. 

And I certainly do NOT appreciate being called a "sheep". I think for myself, and I have formed my perceptions from the sort of varied, and up-close experience with the real world, that most people only read about in books. Or see on TV. I've actually BEEN there and DONE that.

How about you? Get most of your data from.....where? 

Never mind. I can guess. (but I'm not going to "label" you for it. That would be stooping a bit)

Now...on to the rest...

War is bad business. No doubt about it at all. A last resort, to be sure.

But what I don't understand is why some of you out there insist on leaving Saddam be. Do you hate the people of Iraq (especially the children that he is starving to death) so much that you wish to see this horror continue? Do you hate the Israelis so much that you want to see him continue to fund and arm the suicide bombers? Do you revel in the carnage that is produced when a Palestinian blows himself up in a crowded pizza parlour or maims dozens of innocent people on a bus? (BTW-Arabs are frequently among the dead and wounded in these incidents. Saddam only pays the 25 thousand dollar bounty for dead Jews. The rest are considered collateral damage).

Do you really want this to continue? If so...why?

Oh...I forgot...it's really all about oil...isn't it?

Silly me...I must be a stupid sheep.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Big deal. You have a passport and can travel, have ethnic friends and can read. Worked here and worked there.

If you don't want to be lumped in with the war mongering sheep, stop sounding like one. You sound just like another CNN watching American that has a passport. No info in the above post to convince me otherwise, just more Bushish bull crap.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As far as I'm concerned, the south end is a different city entirely . Can you tell I live in the downtown? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. no, but that makes sense. I agree; the south end is just so awfully new and naked, it could be just about any belt of suburbia in North America. Zero character compared to the limestone homes in the older neighbourhoods and all of those fabulous buildings downtown... downtown with its dearth of parking, which prevents the Walmartization of the place, thank god - although it's tough being a merchant down there, too. The way the roads all converge to meet at the St. George's Square there... I think that's what it's called, or is my memory failing?

Well, Guelph being still a smallish place, we probably share a number of mutual acquaintances. Some of the friends I made during my school years there are either still there or moved back to the town after living elsewhere... as for just folks I just plain recognize and nodded hello to on the street, they are legion - I lived in the town long enough to meet and get familiar with some of the local politicos and media types, and did some volunteer work with the health community too. I hefted sacks of powdered milk and cartons of butter at the Gay Lea Plant, mowed lawns and weeded gardens for a local landscaper, painted numerous homes in Fergus, Elora, Cambridge and Guelph itself, was a doorman at the Albion, a TV graphics guy with Maclean-Hunter cable, was a media hound at the university - where I saw my first Mac, an SE-30, and fell in love - and then got involved with weekly papers downtown - involving lots of design, illustration and writing, all done on the Mac. Bought my second Mac, a Centris 660 AV, at First Avenue in Waterloo... a school chum who worked there arranged the deal, and another one of my pals has been working there for years now.

Above all, I did a great deal of living in Guelph... oh yes I did. (;->)) Did long stretches of time in the Albion and the Woolley; ate my brekkies at the Vienna and hit the Diana on weekends - in fact, one time I and my gal at the time painted the Diana... I bought brushes and canvas across the street from there, at Wyndham Art Supplies; had an artists' studio in the Trafalgar building, overlooking the mighty river Speed (;->)) ; did the dinner thing at Einstein's and the Bookshelf and the Cardon Street Cafe and Macdonell Street Grill; bought my fresh fruit and veggies at the Farmer's market - and scored my weekly fix of Jamaican patties from the fabulous Pattie Lady; had shows of paintings and drawings that were hung in the 'Shelf, Service Hardware, Jenwicks Deli, the aforementioned MSG... Gallery Caroline and the MacDonald Stewart Art Centre.

Okay, that's enough indulgence in sweet nostalgia. I do believe you did not ask for that barrage... apologies! So, anyway, yeah, I too was a downtowner (lived on Arthur St., Cardon St., Northumberland, Surrey, and Fountain). Great town. When I left I was pretty certain that it was a mistake to go, but at the time there were other factors which made the move pretty alluring and timely. Still, I pined for Guelph for probably two years before I found my feet again here in the big smoke. They say you can't go home, and I believe it's true... but The Royal City remains a great touchstone for me. Cheers, man.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"[1] It's kind of weird; I've read a lot of pro- and anti-war copy over the past few months, and the anti-war crowd seems to resort to insulting the pro-war crowd more often than not (and the pro-war crowd seems quite restrained at times). I wonder why that is?"

Nothing weird about it; all a matter of perspective, don't ya know. You obviously do not paint yourself as an anti-war type, and yet I note that you describe others of your ilk as being rather restrained while for its part the anti-war crowd is somehow merely insulting. This is, need I say it, a self-serving view. It's common enough behaviour, even aguably all too human and natural - but it's not as if you personally have a greater grip on the truth than anyone else in here, including the so-called anti-war types.

So much high-minded silliness stems from the right vs. left, anti vs. pro kinds of divides... by the way, Guelph is one amazing town, is it not? Lived there for nearly 8 years, and still miss it some days. Cheers.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MaxWell wrote:
*Nothing weird about it; all a matter of perspective, don't ya know. You obviously do not paint yourself as an anti-war type, and yet I note that you describe others of your ilk as being rather restrained while for its part the anti-war crowd is somehow merely insulting.*

I'm not saying the anti-war crowd is merely capable of insults (I've had several intelligent, thoughful conversations with people who think that the war in Iraq isn't the best of ideas). I _am_ saying that on this particular issue the anti-war crowd seems to take comfort in classifying those who are pro-war as mindless automatons incapable of thinking for themselves.

*...but it's not as if you personally have a greater grip on the truth than anyone else in here, including the so-called anti-war types.*

I don't know about that. On this particular issue (the war on Iraq, at least) I think I'm right and the anti-war types, while their hearts are probably in the right place, are wrong 

This is what I get for getting a degree in Mathematics!

*So much high-minded silliness stems from the right vs. left, anti vs. pro kinds of divides... by the way, Guelph is one amazing town, is it not? Lived there for nearly 8 years, and still miss it some days. Cheers.*

Guelph is great, although commuting back and forth between Waterloo can be a bit of a drag. Ah well, at least I'm not driving into Toronto.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"I'm not saying the anti-war crowd is merely capable of insults (I've had several intelligent, thoughful conversations with people who think that the war in Iraq isn't the best of ideas). I _am_ saying that on this particular issue the anti-war crowd seems to take comfort in classifying those who are pro-war as mindless automatons incapable of thinking for themselves."

You mean, sorta like your taking comfort in making a sweeping generalization about antiwar types? Oh sure, I see what you mean, totally. (;->))

"On this particular issue (the war on Iraq, at least) I think I'm right and the anti-war types, while their hearts are probably in the right place, are wrong "

Oh, that's a deft move - complement them on the heart thing, then move in with the devastating uppercut! I see you're a bit practised at this sort of thing. (;->))

"Guelph is great, although commuting back and forth between Waterloo can be a bit of a drag. Ah well, at least I'm not driving into Toronto."

Few people can take it for long, I agree. Last year I worked with an otherwise sane man whose home is on the outskirts of Acton, but who daily commuted to work in Scarborough... I think if he were to do this for a few more years he's lose all his hair and start to chew on his fingers 'till they were raw and bloody. Ahh, the old 401... the old Toronto-Windsor stretch has to be one of the deadliest highways in NorthAm. Seems your commute to Waterloo is but a sneeze in comparison. Although I will allow for the distinct possibility that it's getting crowded out there these days and the roads have probably not kept up with the surging traffic. I left Guelph in 94 and there's all those new homes which keep springing up like weeds in the south end. One day Guelph will be absorbed by the ravenous maw of the GTA. It's already half-way there. Time to look for property on the Bruce Peninsula, methinks. (;->))


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

adagio wrote:
*He has posed a valid question. Why hasn't someone just assasinated Saddam? He believes it could have been done by now. Is this a too simple answer?*

The problem I see with simply assassinating Saddam is that if you do, then one of his sons (or someone else close to Saddam) will just step up and take his place. You've just traded one despot for another.

*It's his belief that the US is after the oil.*

Again, if it was just about getting access to Iraqi oil, wouldn't the US/UN lift the sanctions? That would be a far cheaper way of getting at the oil than having to go through an invasion.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I've made my view clear on this issue, so I won't go in to them all over once again. However, I would like to support Macnutt in his claim that "Labels are demeaning and predudicial. I do not use them." He and I may not see eye to eye on various issues, and we have exchanged virtual "jabs" at one another, along with many friendly coast-to- coast comments. However, I have never known him to utilize labels or demean someone by a unjust term.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, if it was just about getting access to Iraqi oil, wouldn't the US/UN lift the sanctions? That would be a far cheaper way of getting at the oil than having to go through an invasion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have to laugh. Not that it will do any good but let's see.

Sanction lifting still leaves Saddam in charge of Iraqi oil. Then the US could buy it. That is not what Bush and his gang of would be murders want or are after. They are after control of the oil not the purchase of the oil. Iraq, I believe has the world's second largest oil deposits. Once the USA has that control they win. They can call all the shots in the world. They have the Saudis in their pocket now. (You know Saudi Arabia, the country where most of the terrorists were from on 911.) By shots I mean they can strangle the economies of countries that don't tow the American line by limiting oil supply to that area. No oil no energy, no energy no transportation, not transportation no trade etc etc . . . . . 


Get the picture? Didn't think so.

Saddam and his gang of murderous thugs must go. I really believe that. But not by bombing the people of Iraq.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Getting back to the original idea of this thread. I am not a "protester" (which is as much a LABLE as left or right.) I have however been to protests deliberately. I felt it necesary so I migth have a clearer vision of what protests are about and the people who participate in them. To me life is my classroom. If I'm interested I get my answers myself. Now, what I have experience is neither here nor there to the thread at hand. I will however say that the more people on this planet that individually change their personal views of death, killing, war and everything else that is not necesary on this planet any longer will hopefully see that this alone is a contribution to peace in itself. (whew, that was a long one). So yes, I tire of the left and right crap too. It's all name calling and at this point there are some of you in here who are so far away from a clear vision that there really is no alternative for you. And for that I am sorry. 
Macnutt, do you have to bring up your worldly travels every time someone calls you out for what you really seem to be. I find it hard to believe your Canadian sometimes. And further, I too have seen this life through eyes I had no business owning but you know, I try my best to keep my condesention to a minimum. I will only close in saying, I expect more of a man who has seen it all like you.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Thanks, timmer. Clear, concise and simple on the ears!  

To my way of thinking, I'm attending the upcoming protest with a wish for more intelligent practices of diplomacy. I can only hope one day "war" becomes a word only studied in history classes. As our world pushes on into the future, threats of war only serve to prematurely end what may still be a good place to live - this Mother Earth.

I simply don't want another war. A battle of intelligence will sort out the rest.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Alec, thank you for starting a most interesting thread. There is much food for thought here.

I hope your dream of only reading about war in history books comes true but, alas, I do not feel this will be so.

As long as there are men with egos bigger than their brains, I'm afraid the world will always be in turmoil.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sad, but true adagio.  

Thank you for sharing the comments from your Iraqi friend. A valuable insight from someone who has truly "been there and done that"

As to the suggestion he made about assasinating Saddam....I believe that this is something quite close to what the US has in mind. Once the battle is on, there will be an attack ,from inside of Iraq, on Saddam and his whole command structure. This will include all members of his family who might be in line to assume power once he is gone. The ones he hasn't already murdered himself, at least.

There will not be a "war" in the sense that so many seem to believe. I don't see massive tank battles or nonstop bombing of Baghdad. Not with the sort of equipment that is available these days.

It will probably be anticlimatic. Once Saddam is gone (and he will be) then there will be repercussions.

Iraq is quite advanced compared to the rest of the Arab world. They do not seem to have the same Islamic fervor that a lot of other states in the Middle East are dealing with. There is also quite a lot of infrastructure and the people are generally very well educated.

So what would happen if, after Saddam, this modern Arab country were to become the very first free democracy in the whole area? Self-determining and rich with petro dollars. What would happen in the surrounding countries? Most have oil wealth, but it tends to be concentrated in the hands of the ruling families of these countries. None have a free vote, and many (most) severely repress women by invoking antiquated religious laws.

What would happen if Iraq became the model for a modern Middle Eastern country? One that all of the rest would begin to move toward.

Do you suppose that we might see some sort of lasting peace in this region as each place began to modernise and westernise? Well-educated people who are busy raising families and building personal wealth in a free democracy are generally uninterested in making war on each other. Without a dictator ordering them to make war, they will usually vote for peace and prosperity.

Yep....there could be some serious "repercussions" of this upcoming battle. It could be a new beginning for the whole area.

We will have to wait and see.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you suppose that we might see some sort of lasting peace in this region as each place began to modernise and westernise? [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Westernize!! How arrogant! I think another poster was right. I'm starting to believe you are not a Canadian myself.
Let's go forth and westernize the earth. We can sell you huge gas sucking SUV's, let you watch Fear Factor on TV. We'll even give you CNN. Bring your children up drinking Coke and eating Mars Bars. We will give you $5.oo a month jobs making Nike shoes. Get you all hooked on Marlboro cigarettes and sell you medical equipment and pharmaceuticals at inflated prices to help cure some of the cancers contracted from working in factories we westerners set up without the environmental restrictions that we in the West must adhere to.
What a joke. We can bring the mongrel hordes westernization. They are far too stupid to figure their own lives out. How about butting out of their business and let them have their own culture instead of forcing the western one upon them?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Temper, temper garyola.

I was posing a question...postulating a "what if" scenario. Not advocating that anyone force an unwanted system on another country. Simply wondering if a free and self-determining Iraq might not move toward what we have, and therefore become a model for other countries in the area.

Is it such a bizarre idea?

I recall asking the very same question more than twenty five years ago about a much different country. My friend...an adherent of the political left...was equally outraged and actually began laughing loudly enough to disturb all of the patrons of the pub we were sitting in. He told me I was crazy, and deeply wrong! It would NEVER happen! They were different people and had their own system...they would never "westernise"! I was, apparently, a fool to even think such a thing.

What country was I speaking about?

China.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

China remains far more Chinese than it does Western. It is a mistake to think that it has adopted most of Western culture and business practices. It's changes in this respect remain superficial ones.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

China, I have no words. Are you for real? This is joke already. There is no way this can be serious any longer. Sure China may be adopting certain aspects of the western hemosphere like fast food and basketball players but westernised? These people are forced to keep thought diary's. You can't even enter the country withour risking serious illness. Which by the way America is not far behind with the AIDS epidemic. And as far as politics goes, this is actually the real superpower on planet earth. No one has more nukes pointed at America right now then China. As a matter of fact the CIA can only speculate the claim. Thus when the Americans get caught with a spy plane where it did not belong Mr. Bush went for lunch instead of any thought of military action. Which, where I'm from makes you a grade "A" Pu$$y when you only beat on the one's who really can't defend themselves like the CHILDREN OF IRAQ!


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

I'm beginning to think it's a shame the U.S.S.R. and it's Communist rule aren't around to keep America in check! That's what the U.S. needs - a muzzle and reins.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Garyola, did you mean to write "mongrel hordes" or "mongol hordes". The latter has been utilized, in a negative context, to discuss the barbarity of the Asian Mongols. However, a "mongrel" is a very derrogatory term, meaning, at best, someone of mixed parentage. I shall consider this a spelling miscue in the heat of the moment of tearing apart Macnutt. Once again, he was utilizing a subjective role expectation scenario, rather than presenting a solution to this issue. Somehow, I think that the original idea of stopping war has created a mini-battle among the fine neighbors of ehMacLand.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macnutt,

I am still waiting for your explanation of your definitions of political "left" and "right."

Asked but not answered.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

Dr. G

I said mongrel and it was intentional. You are taking it out of context. I was saying it sarcastically as how some people in the west feel about the rest of the world. That they should be westerniZed. If I did not make that clear, I'm sorry you mistook it. I'll try to be a little more clear for you.

G


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Heated issue for sure and interesting read... I urge everyone to keep debating but remain level headed...

Its very interesting reading the view points here... I've got to say, arguments are FAR more convincing when they are backed up with level headed explanations. Carry on. 

I have to reluctantly admit I'm pretty ignorant to all the issues about Iraq. I simply don't know what really goes on and what are the real issues and motivations of the US etc...


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*Temper, temper garyola.

I was posing a question...postulating a "what if" scenario. Not advocating that anyone force an unwanted system on another country. Simply wondering if a free and self-determining Iraq might not move toward what we have, and therefore become a model for other countries in the area.

Is it such a bizarre idea?

I recall asking the very same question more than twenty five years ago about a much different country. My friend...an adherent of the political left...was equally outraged and actually began laughing loudly enough to disturb all of the patrons of the pub we were sitting in. He told me I was crazy, and deeply wrong! It would NEVER happen! They were different people and had their own system...they would never "westernise"! I was, apparently, a fool to even think such a thing.

What country was I speaking about?

China.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you worry about my Irish temper. 

You had me actually believing that you know what you're talking about until you wrote "China". And please have the intestinal fortitude to make your point and take your medicine instead of disguising points you are trying to make as questions so later you can use "it was only a question defense." Very transparent.

It's westerni*Z*e.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ehMax:
*Heated issue for sure and interesting read... I urge everyone to keep debating but remain level headed....*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If I have to be level headed, I'm going to stop payment on that donation I sent.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

From another poster on another mac site. 28MB download and about 38 miniutes long.

A Case Against War


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*OK I'll buy that.*

As I thought you would. It seems that you think it's far better to call someone names than actually respond in a level-headed manner. I mean, that's the only way you'll ever win the "sheep" (or hawks, if you prefer) like me over to your side.

I really hope I'm not the only one on here that's disappointed with your lack of courtesy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A voice of reason amongst all of the vitriol being flung about on this thread.

Thank you macdoc. Thank you jfpoole! 

Garyola...I mentioned this particular quarter century old conversation with my left-leaning friend because it serves to illustrate how a simple "what if" question had produced a very strong negative reaction from across the table (and across the political spectrum). I was subjected to a fair amount of ridicule over the next few years from my friend, just for having posed this question. It usually happened at parties, when he had some of his more committed leftist friends gathered around. He was playing to a friendly crowd, and I was outnumbered severely at these moments. (BTW-it takes at least a dozen to outnumber a single Scot)

Anyway...I am still good friends with this person. He doesn't mention this incident anymore, though. We would stop being friends if I rubbed his nose in it. Consequently, I don't dare bring it up these days either, in light of the direction that China is now headed. In fact, there are about a dozen subjects that are taboo when speaking with him. He upsets easily. He hasn't quite been the same, since the Soviet Union collapsed.

One of the things that became most apparent to me when I was living in foreign lands (note: I did not just "travel"...my primary residence was in South or Central America. I went on _vacation_ to Canada, once in a while)

Anyway...one of the things I noticed the most was this: virtually _everybody_ that I got to know over the years, while living in these countries, wanted exactly what we already have...a western lifestyle. They wanted prosperity, good health care, freedom to come and go as they pleased, and...perhaps most of all...they wanted a better life for their children.

Mostly, they weren't getting this from their own country. Things have changed somewhat, in some of the countries I lived and worked in. Brasil was a dictatorship when I was there...now they freely elect their own government. Venezuela had free elections back then, but now looks to be headed toward dictatorship. Guatemala was a mess then...and it is a mess now.

I could go on. And on.

But you get the point. Most people, in most places, want a lifestyle that is best described as "western". I don't know this from CNN...or from reading some sort of ideologically motivated magazine.

I know it from having lived, for long periods of time, in countries that do NOT have a western lifestyle. They all want what we've already _GOT_.

Marg's Iraqi friend would probably confirm that most people in his country would like to have this too. Just a guess...but I'm bettin it's true over there as well.

Iraq has almost all of the necessary components to make this happen. All that is holding them back is a murderous dictator who causes them grief and suffering on a regular basis. Once he is gone...and IF they move towards self-determination and elect a decent government...then everyone who lives in this region will sit up and take notice. 

They will want what Iraq has got. And they will get it, eventually.

And I promise that IF and WHEN that all takes place...I won't bring the subject up and rub your nose in it.

Wouldn't want to _upset_ you, after all.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

And I'm still watiing for macnutt's explanations of what he considers to be the political "left" and "right."


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*Garyola wrote:
OK I'll buy that.

As I thought you would. It seems that you think it's far better to call someone names than actually respond in a level-headed manner. I mean, that's the only way you'll ever win the "sheep" (or hawks, if you prefer) like me over to your side.

I really hope I'm not the only one on here that's disappointed with your lack of courtesy.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see how much courtesy will be extended to the people of Iraq when bombs start to fall. That's when it gets real. People die in war. I shouldn't have to try to win you over for the cause to peace, you should already be there. Unless you are willing to pick up a weapon and go. You really shouldn't be advocating a war.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Garyola...Saddam is the target, not the people of Iraq. Carpet bombing orphanages is not in the game plan this time out. If you are under the impression that US miltary technology has not progressed past the point of the Gulf War, then I beg to inform you of the changes.

Big time.

Watch and see.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*"So if my posts seem a little harsh and insulting, it's because they were meant to be. It's not just about different points of view to when one "point of view" is advocating war and killing people. I think the discussion should get ugly because it is an ugly subject. If that gets me kicked from this board or censored then that is just sad. " *

I think part of the debate is about whether the US's motivation for war is to *BE* peace keepers or whether its for more dubious intentions. Nobody here is advocating war for wars sake. Rather, some are making legitamate arguments why a pre-emptive strike against Saddam is neccasary and is ultimately for peace. 

One could make equally compelling if not better arguments against war with Iraq without hurling childish insults. I would think someone who prefers diplomacy and dialogue over war and aggression would understand that.  

You may not care about your credibility but why debate with people on a web site then when no one will find your arguments credible and actually further polarize them from your point of view?

I want to believe war with Iraq is a bad idea! Convice us with valid arguments. The only sad thing is if the best arguments against war are insults.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay, garyola...you've now heard from the Mayor. He is the ultimate authority in these parts and he is telling you what a lot of the rest of us have been telling you....

We do things a little differently around here. We do not insult or demean each other at a personal level, no matter how heated the argument. We conduct ourselves with civility at all times.

It works better that way. It's also the reason that so many of us consider ehMac our favorite forum. 

Politeness is one of the things that Canadians are known for, all over the world. Let's keep it that way here, as well.

Fair enough?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

manutt,

i am still waiting for an answer to my question of "what is your defintion of the political right and left."

i have now asked several times to no avail.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MaxWell wrote:
*Okay, that's enough indulgence in sweet nostalgia. I do believe you did not ask for that barrage... apologies!*

No apologies needed! It's always interesting to see how others spend (or spent) their time in Guelph.

*So, anyway, yeah, I too was a downtowner (lived on Arthur St., Cardon St., Northumberland, Surrey, and Fountain). Great town. When I left I was pretty certain that it was a mistake to go, but at the time there were other factors which made the move pretty alluring and timely.*

I've only been here for a year (on Northumberland, to boot) and I know it's going to be hard to leave Guelph should the time come. It's such a great city, and I love spending time downtown (especially since it's not been Wal-Martized). 

Now if only it didn't get so cold during winter here, I'd be set


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, my Guelph detour was perhaps not entirely welcome, given the nature of the thread I was busy derailing, however inadvertently. Glad to see it bounce back to the topic at hand. And a most interesting topic it is.

As for the controversy and heat it has generated, I would be alarmed if it did not make some waves and ruffle a few feathers here and there. Politeness and courtesy are all very nice, but sometimes a little burr under the saddle will shake one out of too complacently backing the same tired horse all the time. I certainly do not pretend to speak for the people on this board, but I will personally state that I for one grow weary of the 'polite Canuck' thing... what a wretched stereotype we seem to have handed ourselves. God, our legendary politeness is practically a part of our branding on the International stage! However much I suppose that it's something of an honour, I invariably conclude: what a nice, calm, infinitely dreadful bore. Hey, I think it's refreshing to see some spunky Canucks out there, speaking up and stepping out of that constraining suit of rigid, crusty formality. I think we ought to be able to move more to a centrist position between the polarities of frigid reserve and rampaging boorishness. Right now we tend to gravitate more to the former... _bleh._

But no matter. Having registered my opinion on the matter, I shall now, like a good little Canadian, return to my shy shell of oddly tentative decorum.
(;->)) 

Now if only I could find the prefs to expand this [email protected] micro-window of a text-entry field, I'd be set. (;->))


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Macdoc, thank you for your elegant post. You expressed the feelings most of us have.

Name calling and personal insults have no place in this forum. There have been many heated arguments in the past, but everyone has had the opportunity to express their opinions, as it should be in a free society. I don't always agree with Macnutt, Cuba Mark, Cynical Critic, etc.but I respect their right to state their stand on any issue. They have made very compelling presentations. There is no excuse to lower oneself to some of the language used in this thread.

What makes ehMac special is the respect we have for each other and I strongly object to some of the comments made in this thread.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm sitting on the sidelines on this. I think as the resident "Doc" this thread shows serious bipolar tendencies.
Let's see a chatty "Guelph living" thread interwoven with a heated left right, war no war diatribe from both ends of the spectrum.









Garyola, as a new neighbor you are just getting to know some of the frequent posters and wide ranging opinions.
MacNutt IS our resident ******* ( quite happily so I believe) and offers an interesting foil to the generally centre left of several others,
He's been somewhat civilized lately having been ganged up on a number of times to keep his rhetoric down and his good points explained and backed up.  

"Hizhonuur" the Mayor is simply asking you to keep the arguments decorous. Heated is fine, insulting is not.
Phrases like "war mongering sheep" are perjorative and do nothing but diminish your credibility and hence the value of your viewpoint.

Many of us, including myself are conflicted by the Iraq situation and deeply suspicious of Bush.

Respect for all viewpoints is a useful approach and it's not in evidence in some of your posts.
You come across as single minded as you are accusing others of.

As MacNutt knows, I'm certainly no friend of the US yet the Saddam issue is a thorny problem for the entire world.
A bit more thoughtful discussion might set a good example


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Just went to the "case against war" link your offered up Garyola. You just can't beat the BBC sometimes. Great stuff! Covered a lot of bases an made some great points from people who have been invovled to some degree or another. Thanks.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*Okay, garyola...you've now heard from the Mayor. He is the ultimate authority in these parts and he is telling you what a lot of the rest of us have been telling you....

We do things a little differently around here. We do not insult or demean each other at a personal level, no matter how heated the argument. We conduct ourselves with civility at all times.

It works better that way. It's also the reason that so many of us consider ehMac our favorite forum. 

Politeness is one of the things that Canadians are known for, all over the world. Let's keep it that way here, as well.

Fair enough?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Spare me your civility. There is nothing civil about war and killing. You do things different here? Ha! Don't confuse different with safe.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*Sanction lifting still leaves Saddam in charge of Iraqi oil. Then the US could buy it.*

Right, which is what the US used to do, and will do after the war (presuming, of course, that the war happens). I don't recall Iraq offering any resistance in selling American oil in the past, but I could be wrong. 

*Iraq, I believe has the world's second largest oil deposits.*

From the numbers I've been able to find, Saudi Arabia has the largest oil deposits, with Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait(!) jostling for second place. Since Kuwait owes the US a lot for liberating it from Iraq back in 1991, I doubt they'd ever cut off the American's oil supply.

In other words, I can't see a strategic reason that would necessitate the US invading Iraq soley in order to gain complete control over Iraqi oil fields.

*They have the Saudis in their pocket now.*

The Americans do not have the Saudis in their pocket. If they did, the Americans would assemble their troops in Saudi Arabia, not Kuwait (the Saudi-Iraq border is much larger, and the concentration of American troops in Kuwait makes for a compelling target for a WMD). 

*Get the picture? Didn't think so.*

Perhaps I'm not "getting the picture" because you've yet to make a convincing argument?

Nah. It must be because I'm a "sheep".


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*Heated is fine, insulting is not.
Phrases like "war mongering sheep" are perjorative and do nothing but diminish your credibility and hence the value of your viewpoint.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't nor will I apologize for terms like "war mongering sheep". And I really don't care about my credibility.
I can't find it in me to show respect for those Canadians that support and champion the cause of that thing in the white house. Canadians that champion the deaths of others by war sicken me. This country has a tradition since the end of the second World War of acting in war only if called upon by the UN or Peace Keeping. Peace Keeping, I believe is one of the things that make us who we are. Why we are respected. Why Canada is always voted one of the best places on earth to live. We don't go out as aggressors because some little man in a white house tells us to. We save lives as Peace Keepers not take them. That is the Canadian way. Quite opposite to the American way. I'm proud when I think I'm a citizen of a peace keeping country and it feels good. We as Canadians should be waving that flag as Peace Keepers and stand our ground. Say no to a war that the UN doesn't sanction. If the bully to the south calls us cowardly and soft. So be it. How brave is it to bomb women and children from thousands of feet in the air?

So if my posts seem a little harsh and insulting, it's because they were meant to be. It's not just about different points of view to when one "point of view" is advocating war and killing people. I think the discussion should get ugly because it is an ugly subject. If that gets me kicked from this board or censored then that is just sad.

G


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Garyola wrote:
*Let's go forth and westernize the earth.*

Indeed! We can show you that women are equal to men and can (and will!) make a valuable contribution to society. We can show you that you can worship whichever god (or gods, for that matter) you choose. We can show you that you can voice your opinions, whatever they may be. We'll even show you that you choose your own leaders!

How horrible of us! Evil, evil, western civilization!


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It must be because I'm a "sheep".[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I'll buy that.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Spare me your civility. There is nothing civil about war and killing. You do things different here? Ha! Don't confuse different with safe.*

Some would argue that you shouldn't confuse leaving Saddam alone as being peaceful. 

One also shouldn't confuse being level headed and civil as being passive. One can be totally dedicated, passionate and strong willed about and opinion and still make an intelligent argument without resorting to insults.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lotus, I agree with your views pertaining the mood this thread is taking. Freedom of thought and expression is one of our most precious freedoms, and the first to go when a dictatorship comes to power.


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ehMax:
*"So if my posts seem a little harsh and insulting, it's because they were meant to be. It's not just about different points of view to when one "point of view" is advocating war and killing people. I think the discussion should get ugly because it is an ugly subject. If that gets me kicked from this board or censored then that is just sad. " 

I think part of the debate is about whether the US's motivation for war is to BE peace keepers or whether its for more dubious intentions. Nobody here is advocating war for wars sake. Rather, some are making legitamate arguments why a pre-emptive strike against Saddam is neccasary and is ultimately for peace. 

One could make equally compelling if not better arguments against war with Iraq without hurling childish insults. I would think someone who prefers diplomacy and dialogue over war and aggression would understand that.  

You may not care about your credibility but why debate with people on a web site then when no one will find your arguments credible and actually further polarize them from your point of view?

I want to believe war with Iraq is a bad idea! Convice us with valid arguments. The only sad thing is if the best arguments against war are insults. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last post, I promise. You can delete if you like. I will vacate this forum and leave you to your niceties. 

I've given many valid arguments but they just get skirted with what if fed to them via the main stream media puppets.

Think I'm being childish if that is what you need. War mongering insults my sensibilities and that is just the way it is no matter how it is wrapped up and disguised in civility. So I meet that kind of crap head on and call them as I see them. If being called "War Mongering Sheep" hurts them somehow, too damn bad. It hurts the Canadian Muslims and Arabs far more to see other Canadians championing the bombing of their relatives in a distant, far away place. Like their families and friends are just obstacles to kill on the way to some sick victory over a practically unarmed people. I find that far more insulting.

I'll now leave you to it. It's your forum and I'll respect the way you want to run it. Happy War Mongering to all that do so. Do it in a civil way though, because that makes it tolerable.
G

PS: If you are using Safari or OmniWeb the spell check works when composing a post.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Garyola, I think that it is how you are presenting your view, not the view itself. I, for one, will certainly support your right to express your thoughts. However, your message would probably get more favorable reactions if they were toned down. Leave the labels and rhetoric aside and keep focused upon your message, which DOES need to be heard.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

I think it's a real shame when someone who comes to ehmac get chased out of town for at the very least being honest. I have read through a few of the previous pages only to see that Garyola really didn't say anything all that out of line. And the fact that a few of you immediately hid behind the mayors voice speaks everything that is necesary to know about you. Today I am sad, that such agreat fourm would be censored and a strong voice would be chased out of town by the sheer numbers of the attack not the lodgic or any other justification you may think you have.  As I read through there were only a few places where one could get their back up in my opinion and jfpoole, you of all were throwing your words around just as loosely. And I will say again, Macnut, sometimes your condesention is so thick it's sickens me to read. So the minute someone comes around, with voice I might add, it gets stomped out and silenced like so many though the ages who ironically opposed war. So good for you Garyola, I for one support you and your thoughts and freedoms as a Canadian let alone someone who is contributing to a fourm.  
CENSORSHIP PROTECTS NO ONE! It only blinds those who could see right in the first place. 
Thank you, I too will re-think my place in ehmac. 
timmer


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't think anyone around here is being chased out of town for their extreme views... if that were the case then I'd have been gone long ago.

The Mayor simply said that he was interested in hearing Garyola's argument pertaining to the real reasons for this war, and the reasons why Saddam should be left where he is. He invited Gary to make a solid argument for his case without calling anyone who disagreed with his views "media sheep".

No one is being run out of town. At least that is the way I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And...at the risk of "hiding beind the Mayors voice"...I would like to quote ehmax:

He wrote.."_some would argue that you shouldn't confuse leaving Saddam alone as being peaceful_"

BINGO! Couldn't have said it better myself.

So....Garyola, or anyone else who is sitting in the "no war" camp right now...what say ye?

Does "give peace a chance" have any meaning ,in this instance, when dealing with a muderous despot like Saddam?

If we do NOT attack, will _that_ bring peace to the people of Iraq? No more killing, no more torture, no further incidents like airborne gassing of the Kurds?

Will everything be peachy...just so long as we don't unleash the hounds and remove the psychopath?

Or will life in Iraq suddenly get a whole lot better once he's gone? 

And, if that's the case...then why are some of you arguing so fervently to continue subjecting the Iraqi people to this ongoing horror?

Comments, anyone?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with timmer's view that censorship does not help the cause of freedom with responsiblity.

I also agree with Macnutt's comment that "Does 'give peace a chance' have any meaning, in this instance, when dealing with a
muderous despot like Saddam?". "These are the times that try men's souls" is so very true right now. When a pacifist supports the use of force it is a sad day indeed. As I have said before, I am torn on this issue.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

If anyone cares for the download time, Garyola shared an excellent link that has a woman in it who was tortured by Saddam's people, she said it best. Yes Saddam should be removed and she also said let the people of Iraq do this. Watch the link. It is really mind opening no matter where you are on this issue. 
Thank you all. 
timmer


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Let's not fool ourselves.

ehMac is NOT a democracy.

it is a bulletin board being run by a private individual(s). Members are subject to the rules and regulations of those individuals' choosing

if u want a better democratic example, let's get together in a quiet bar and we can discuss to our heart's content.

as my late father used to say; "Democracy begins when I come home and close my front door."

He was an immigrant to Canada who was forced to be slave labour in Nazi Germany. Taken from his home village at a young age. Survived many bombings. Told me many stories of WWII and thru his stories I learned my distaste for war. Until his death, he never allowed margarine in his house because of the flood of memories that it brought back for him of the war. (Butter was not available)

Sure, Saddam et al are doing bad, even evil, things to their people and the people are suffering for it.

Too bad the we cannot think of a way to help the Iraqi people help themselves as timmer has suggested. "Give a man a fish...." you all know the rest.

I don't think that the U.S. has any moral high ground here as judge and jury. ref: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai, Kent State, just to name a few.

If and when the U.N. security council ( the best version of a world court we have right now) decides to use military force in Iraq, then it would be the will of the security council (not the entire U.N. let us not forget) and at least there has been some debate on the issue before using war as a tool to solve geo-political problems. 

Just as a postscript, I still notice that over 40 million American citizens do not have health care. Why this is not a priority for any U.S. gov't is shameful. The richest and most powerful nation on earth cannot even offer its own people basic health care.

Let's not even get started on how many people die from cigarette smoke, both 1st and 2nd hand each year.

Obviously I have digressed.

My apologies to the PTB (Powers That Be)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I sympathise with Dr.G and anyone else who is, by nature, a pacifist. It is never easy to make the hard decisions and take the course that must be taken...especially when that very course will go against all that you believe in.

Here is a quote from one of the world' s most famous pacificsts.... Gandhi:

_"Manslaughter may be necessary, in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amok and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes his way, and no one dares capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches the lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man"_

This, from a man who valued peace above all else. Sometimes the only way to maintain the peace is through action of some sort.

Finally...Michael. Do you suppose that a pre-emptive strike on Hitler's headquarters in 1939 (like a LOT of people were advocating at the time) would not have saved your Father a lot of suffering?

Would that have been an act of war...or a prevention of war?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

Do you think that mabye the terrible conditions put upon Germany after the 1st world war may have led to the rise of Hitler? Just maybe?

If Bush Sr., did not abandon the Kurds who were ready to overthrow Saddam but instead were left alone by the U.S. to be exterminated by Saddam, perhaps this upcoming war would not be necessary.

There is an old business acumen; "It takes only 10% of the energy to avoid a problem than it does to solve it." 

Now before anyone misinterprets that phrase, it means by recognizing a problem in advance and seeing to it that the conditions do not take place for the problem to fester, you spend less energy than to solve it.

e.g. - don't smoke and you have a better chance of not getting some sort of terrible respiratory illness which then takes much more effort to cure, if possible.

We are are citizens of this planet. We need to, sooner or later, learn to work together.

We need leaders that are visionaries and not reactionaries ( a little literary licence there)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Garyola, I don't want you to leave ehMac, please stay. I really value your point of veiw... in fact I want more people on ehMac with your point of view. I don't blame you for being heated about this issue. For those who have been around here for awhile they know that on occasion I've dispensed insults during debates on issues that were very close to me. (And other members gently put me back in line)

Without you here I wouldn't have viewed the BBC program on the "case against war"... just watched it in its entirety... awesome program. I'm very confused and troubled by the Iraq crisis. The program certainly swayed my opion against going to war in a big way. Many, many valid points were made why we shouldn't go to war. (And I didn't hear a single insult  )

This is a very ugly issue and its needs to be rigorously debated. I want to be informed and I want the pertinent issues from both side.  Again, please stay and my apologies if I singled you out. 

ps.. Thank you *VERY* much for the tip about spell checking! I'm serious! I never new you could do spell checking from Safari! And.. as my wife has told me as she browsed through ehMac.. my spelling sucks! You just made my life a lot better.







(And other people on ehMac who read my posts)

I want to stress ehMac is a community where everyone is accepted for who they are. I've learned such a great deal from the debates here.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Guess I have to echo his honour the Mayor and say that I would rather see an extensive depth and breadth of viewpoints in this place - makes it more interesting, does it not? - than a place that's defined by its tameness more than anything else.

So, Gary - stick around, ya big galoot. Besides, I know where you live, man. Get my drift?
(;->))


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MaxWell:
*So, Gary - stick around, ya big galoot. Besides, I know where you live, man. Get my drift?
(;->))*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That makes two of us!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Garyola,

did you block your email address?


----------



## Bilbo (Jul 12, 2001)

I certainly hope that military action is not necessary. Having said that, Saddam is definitely a problem that needs to be dealt with. The best way to deal with him is the question.

As I see it, the other issue here is the credibility of the UN. They have to make darn sure that they enforce they're own mandates, because if they don't, no one is going to take them seriously in the future. North Korea comes immediately to mind.

There are all sorts of press stating that the US just wants to go in and bomb Iraq. I am not so sure about that. I tend to think that they just keep turning up the pressure on Saddam in the hope that 1) He may go into exile or 2) He'll get assasinated or overthrown or 3) Finally come clean, unfortunately this option only fixes thing temporarily. I am sure the US would rather look after this situation without a full-scale confrontation.

I would not be surprised however if the US takes miltary action though, I simply don't believe that it is their FIRST choice, it just looks like it is.

I see Iraq magically found more documentation for the inspectors this weekend. When it comes right down to it, it is the threat of military force that gets Saddam to give up anything, and even then, he'll only give it up inch by inch. If the US was not scaling up the war talk and sending in the hardware, the UN would not have gotten as far as they have, plain and simple.

The sad thing here is the rest of the world seems to care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam does. You know full well he puts his most sensitive stuff mixed right in with the general population, hidden near or at hospitals, schools, religious sites and the like. There is no way to take that material out without inflicting collateral damage and killing innocent civilians. Iraq makes darn sure all the civilian casulties make the 11 o'clock news because it helps their cause and generates simpathy.

I remember when the gulf war broke out, I had a 10 month old baby. I went in to his room late that night, picked him up and just held him applologizing for this mess that was going on in the world and he had nothing to do with it. At that time I figured the gulf war a stepping stone to WW3. Although it never turned out that way, I have a very bad feeling about this one.

As I say, I am certainly hopeful this gets resolved without hurting the people of Iraq any more than they have been hurt already. But I happen to think the military build up is necessary and puts pressure on the negotiation front.

This is all just my opinion, I have been wrong before, just ask my wife! 

BB


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

re Gary
Sorry I'm going to go counter trend on this _ I don't think someone who WILL NOT express their viewpoint with out resorting to inflammatory and perjorative language deserves to be encouraged. I was under the impression that this was a goal of the ehMac forums.
For one I have better things to do than participate in a thread of that nature.
I cannot see anything productive coming of it - his links may be informative but if he defends his attitude and wants to leave because he's verbally being fanatical and doesn't like being taken to task for it then
good riddance. It fits the with the image he's presented to date  
There are quite enough others of a similar anti-war stance that can carry that side of the discussion with insight and an open mind..
If there is one clear thing we can learn from history, rants and haranguing do little to lessen the tensions and do nothing to encourage meaningful dialogue. It only serves to polarize and harden viewpoints.
•••
Michael I think Macnutt is ignoring your left/right request as it's not right on topic here. I suggest a new thread on today's "left/right" political landscape as I do believe that's an interesting topic to be explored. There are many strange bedfellows in the anti-globalization and other "emerging issues". A hawkish Labour Party in Britain is clear evidence of that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

david,

i would suggest it is not the labour part that is hawkish but blair and his cabinet. backbenchers are pissed.

Blair cabinet not happy about hawkish stance

re: macnutt - he brought up on many times "the left" and i was asking for an explanation of his label

alas, not even the courtesy of even one response. being off topic never stopped macnutt before but now.. oh well, i'll just keep asking and keep waiting - always the bridesmaid and never the bride.

so macnutt- what is your definition of political left and right?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...you are a perceptive and canny individual. Tip o the hat your way.  

Michael...China is not a looming threat right now. If anything, that particular country will be one of the first to deal with any further escalation in the situation on the Korean peninsula. What would prompt any sort of military action by the US against China, at this point?

I think you're reaching a bit, and dodging my question at the same time. 

It does not follow that, if the US takes down Saddam, they will then begin to march across the planet removing any "head of state" that doesn't particularly please them. Some groups would have you believe this...but I ain't buyin it.

So, I ask again.. no action against Saddam equals peace? Or will you be buying him the time he needs?

And what about the people of Iraq? Will they have peace if the US doesn't remove the madman who's holding them in his iron grip?

Will he go quietly into the good night on his own, if we just leave him alone...or will he pop up later to unleash some untold horror upon us or even upon his own people?

What is your definition of "peace" in this particular case? 

What course of action do you favor...and what do you think the repercussions of that action...or inaction...might be?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW- Macdoc was correct. I do not want to derail this thread from the important debate we are having in order to bore everyone to tears with yet _another_ "left vs right" debate.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

let's examine China...

took lives of its own people via military force - a little thing called "Tienamen Square" - only 1 example

they have WMD and now have missle delivery systems to deliver them world wide

they have slave labour camps where they are used to make goods for the west

they pose a threat to U.S. security, NATO security, since their WMD are mostly pointed at the U.S.

they have over 3x the population of the U.S. and they will need food and soon...

anything else we need to see communist mainland China as a threat?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

if you claim you do not want to 'derail' the thread, although you have in the past, then why use labels such as left and right, something you are vehemently against?

BTW - i only wanted you to define YOUR veiws on left and right, just so i and others know whom you are talking about


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Michael..left and right refer to people's political orientation. I don't consider them perjorative labels...sorry if you do.

Nobody really thinks of China as an imminent threat right now, and you'll have to dredge up something a lot more recent than Tienamen Square. China is rapidly changing and does not pose anything like the danger that Iraq does to it's neighbors.

And you're still dodging my question. Misdirection is usually used when someone is uncomfortable with the question. Am I making you uncomfortable?

What constitutes "peace" in this particular case? Remember...we're talking about the imminent invasion of Iraq by US forces. Not China.

Would leaving Saddam in place constitute "peace". If so...why? And what sort of peace? A lasting one? Peace for the Iraqi people?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*let's examine China...*

The big difference between Iraq and China is that China didn't invade Kuwait


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I suppose a fair case could be made against China if just the right spin were put on it. 

But I still think it's just a dodge.

I don't blame him, it's a tough question. One that most everyone who is saying "peace, not war" should be asking themselves right now.

What is "peace", in _this_ particular situation?

The question remains unanswered.....

anyone else care to take a shot at it?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

i am still waiting for your explanation of what is politically left and what is politically right or am i making you nervous?

what types of policies do YOU believe people on the LEFT believe in as opposed to those YOU consider to be on the political RIGHT.

it appears you do not wish or cannot answer this question and i will not bore this thread with my constant badgering of you for an answer.

this is how debates fall apart. one party (no pun intended) refuses or cannot define something asked by the other party and as such the debate breaks down into rhetoric.

when i get my question answered, i will be more than pleased to answer yours as per civilised debating rules, if not, so be it.

jfpoole,

yeah, you are right, China only invaded Tibet, but they don't have any oil so not to worry.

You see, when you break down politics in absolutes (i.e. let's attack Iraq cause we have no option.) The very definition of politics excuses the idea of absolutes. There is no CORRECT answer. Just OUR correct answer and THEIR correct answer. The most correct answer usually lies somewhere between the two.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't think you're wrong at all. Far from it.

Saddam only understands force. Without a great massed army at his doorstep he would be thumbing his nose at the UN mandates and resolutions just as he has done for the last dozen years. And he would be busy trying his level best to buy more weapons...just as he has been doing for the last twelve years.

The US is not committed to war on the Iraqi people. They want Saddam gone. So do most of the Iraqi people. So does most every other thinking human being with a heart on this whole planet. The US is actually doing something to make that happen.

And the rest of the world is wringing their collective hands and saying "don't push too hard".

If Saddam goes into voluntary exile (highly unlikely) or is assasinated by someone close to him (almost as unlikely) then the war talk will stop.

If the battle starts, it will be against Saddam...and once he is gone or captured, it will end. His command structure will be part of the target. The people of Iraq will not be part of the target.

Leaving him in place is not an option. He is not affected by UN resoloutions, and is not likely to step down voluntarily.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Call me a peacenik or leftie or anything else if you will, but I don't believe the case for war has been made. I do think Iraq and the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, but not at the cost of a war . . . yet.

I always take "intelligence" reports with a substantial grain of rock salt. And most of what the public has been fed by the U.S. and British governments in recent months has proven that to be a good policy. The Brits plagiarize and selectively "edit" six-month-old assignments by post-graduate students and 10-year-old reports by human rights groups, then pass them off as current. People in the CIA today are dissassociating themselves and the agency from U.S. reports that the Iraqis have a nuclear weapons program. And let's not forget how the Saudis were misled about an Iraqi buildup near their border before the last Gulf war.

I flat out don't buy the suggestion that a war can be fought quickly, focused on Saddam and with limited "collateral" damage. We hear this before every war. "It will be over by Christmas" and "We only have to show up" have repeated by hawks since prehistoric times. And if by chance that is the U.S. intention and, miracle of miracles, even within their ability, it certainly won't be Saddam's. If he has WMD as the U.S. and Britain allege, he will certainly use them indiscriminately on Allied forces, the Kurds in the north, Israel and his own people. Saddam Hussein will not go gently unto the night. The war may indeed be quick, but long or short it will certainly be deadly and dirty.

Nor do I believe the U.S. can or will place Iraq on the road to democracy after removing Saddam. They certainly haven't been able to do that in Afghanistan where the U.S.-chosen government exists under the threat of assassinations and with the delicate task of keeping regional warloads happy. Yes, democracy is certainly in sight there. Iraq is surrounded by countries with governments not the least bit interested in Western-styled democracy for themselves or their neighbours. Most are afraid any move in that direction will allow a fundamentalist Islamic group to take over the country. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others may not care for Saddam's Iraq, but they do appreciate a secular Iraq between themselves and fundamentalist Iran. And of course, the U.S., having gone to such great lengths to obtain security of oil supply, will not put it at risk of being controlled by anyone they don't consider a dependent friend.

Iraq poses no greater threat now to peace in the region or the world than it did a year ago, two years ago or three years ago when the world, including the U.S. and Britain, pretty much sat around talking about the problem instead of doing something about it. Saddam is no crueller, no more distasteful, no less trustworthy.

That doesn't mean the U.N. should continue to sit around talking. Long overdue measures are finally being taken, too bad it's taken U.S. brinkmanship to get countries moving. But now that things are happening, I want to see a measure of the results and other options available before anyone pulls a trigger.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

so what do we do about mainland China and other countries that thumb their nose at UN resolutions?

or do those resolutions only count for countries that the US et al can readily beat up on without much political fallout from their own people?

check out UN website 
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Nicely said brainstrained!! Great post.
You mentioned Iran. Last night I saw a report that Iran has their hands on plutonium (SP) which will of course only be used for civillian use. (yeah right) Which I assume means power etc. Thought it was interesting that the guy next door is confessing to having what it takes to get in the game and no one seems all that interested. And if there is anyone out that way that would like to even the playing field you might thing Iran would. Considering how much money/support (weapons) Iraq received from the US long before the Kuwait invasion.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
*You mentioned Iran. Last night I saw a report that Iran has their hands on plutonium (SP) which will of course only be used for civillian use.*

Could you provide a reference for this? I've only been able to find an AP story about Iran planning to build a nuclear power plant. There's no mention of Iran having access to plutonium (only unrefined uranium).

*Thought it was interesting that the guy next door is confessing to having what it takes to get in the game and no one seems all that interested.*

The US isn't thrilled with Iran pursuing a nuclear energy program (since it could be used as a nuclear weapons program), but it sounds like Iran is trying to  do everything out in the open (i.e., by providing inspectors access to the site).


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

jfpoole, 
I saw it on CTV last night. It was late so chances are good here I got it wrong. I will see if there is anything on their site and others and hopefully bring back a link. It was one of those news storys that got literally about 15 seconds of time. And then quickly onto a Tim Hortons commercial.  
Talk to you later.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Try this story. See what you think, your right about the Urainium. My bad. 

CTV story

talk to you later
timmer


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

I wonder when the United Nations will demand an inspection of the United States for weapons of mass destruction? And how about a trial charging the U.S. with war crimes for the civil devastation caused by helter-skelter bombing raids during campaigns of late? Every time the U.S. screws up an attack, all we hear is "oops, sorry"!

Bush = Stalin

U.S. "Democracy" = The New Communism


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Mississauga wrote:
*Bush = Stalin*

Indeed. My friends in the US wonder each night if they'll be purged or sent off to the gulags in Alaska. They all fear about speaking out against the government, lest they (or their loved ones) disappear in the middle of the night.

Oh, wait, they don't. Huh. I guess Bush isn't all that much like Stalin after all.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mississauga, I fear that you are way off the mark when you wrote that "Bush = Stalin" and 
"U.S. "Democracy" = The New Communism". Personally, I can only imagine what those millions of people who were systematically starved or purged by Stalin might say to your statement. I remember when I was a little boy of nine going to the airport with a friend and her parents to meet a relative who was somehow able to literally crawl across the Hungarian border in 1956 to escape the Russian invasion. This man, a quiet university lingusitics professor, emerged from Idewild Airport (that was to become JFK International), got down on his hands and knees, and kissed the ground. With tears in his eyes he softly said to us "God bless America". 

Thus, you may dislike the president of the US, and strongly disagree with his policies, as I do, but think before you equate him and American Democracy with such vile comparatives.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

My apologies. Bush doesn't have the intelligence to measure up to Stalin.

My mother and late grandmother escaped Russia after the rest of their family was executed by Stalin's henchmen. What the Bush administration is doing now is tantamount to the beginnings of the Stalin era. And Bush is too stupid and ignorant to make decisions based on what's good for the people. He is a mere puppet of the "black gold" industry.

But the reign of the American empire will surely draw to a close as the balance of power shifts to the new world economy developing far from our shores. It's inevitable - the U.S. dollar is doomed. The latest administration and it's foolish endeavours will only speed up the process.

Time for the wealthy and able to move, for the sake of their offspring (and their bank accounts)!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Mississauga wrote:
*My apologies. Bush doesn't have the intelligence to measure up to Stalin.*

If you can't beat them, insult them?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mississauga, you might ask your mother would she have preferred staying in Russia under Stalin, or in the US under Bush. For the record, if I were back in the US, I could freely move around the country, and even protest against Bush in front of the White House. Try that in front of the Kremlin during the reign of Stalin. 

When you wrote that "Time for the wealthy and able to move, for the sake of their offspring (and their bank accounts)!", to where do your foresee such people moving?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Dr.G. wrote:
*When you wrote that "Time for the wealthy and able to move, for the sake of their offspring (and their bank accounts)!", to where do your foresee such people moving?*

Canada! Just think, the brain drain could become the brain gain as American's best and brightest surged across the border to escape the draconian arm of the US gov't. Pretty soon, Canada would become the world's only superpower! Mwahahaha!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfpoole, I think we should let Mississauga tell us where he thought the rich would relocate. I have a feeling that he was not considering our fair country........but, you never know. We shall see.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Dr.G. wrote:
*jfpoole, I think we should let Mississauga tell us where he thought the rich would relocate.*

Aww, but I was having fun being silly! Will you let me know when I can start being silly again, then?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfp, sorry, my "funny meter" is broken. Thus, you may resume your humor. Go to the Dr.G's favorite commercial thread and try out your act. Or, go to the bagel site and have a smile on me. I guess I was a bit tired of seeing America run into the ground once again. I remember a record that the Canadian Gordon Sinclair made re how Canadians should not "run down" Americans. I am not a believer in "America, love it or leave it". When America is wrong, it needs to be set straight, in a peaceful and democratic manner. It has had it's share of human rights violations, from slavery of the African-Americans, to the near genocide of the Native Americans, to the deportation of the Japanese in the western US, to the treatment of the African-Americans in the US south, etc. However, America has stood for something these past two hundred years. People will nearly die trying to get to the US. My grandparents came to America when the Czar ordered all Jewish people out of Russia at the onset of the 20th century. They came to America. Life was very difficult in the lower east side of New York City for both of them, as well as for millions of immigrants. Howver, they chose America! "With liberty and justice for all" means just that, and when people forget this, and allow politicians to erode this from the basic fabric of what America actually is, then it is up to the people to say "Enough!" 

Thus, support the war, don't support the war, work for peace or work in a munitions plant. Be passive, active, astute or naive, content or agitated. Whatever you are you are free to be this way in America. I am not saying that America is better, worse or equal to Canada. I am proud to have become a Canadian citizen. However, I am also proud to be an American citizen.

So endeth the sermon.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr. G...I've said it before and I'm saying it again. You are a treasure.   

It takes someone such as yourself to put a little perspective on this whole situation. A very well educated human being who has lived on both sides of the border, a committed pacifist who's own relatives might very well be the targets of an evil despot. 

A reasonable man who knows the difference between silly rhetoric and the truth.

You and I have both lived for an extensive time in the USA. Both of us know the truth about that country. Both of us know that there is no other place on earth that absoloutely guarantees freedom of expression, freedom to associate, and freedom of movement. 

And that's just the short list.

Anyone who would compare Bush, or any other US President with a tyrant such as Stalin is simply misinformed....or has drawn some odd conclusions from the data at hand.

Perhaps some remedial reading of history is indicated. Any suggestions?

Now...can we get back to the question of what to do about Saddam?

Do we do nothing? Will that bring peace? To whom? And will it be a lasting peace?

Is he more of a threat now than he was two years ago...or is he a continuous threat that will only get worse with time?

Will he continue to try and obtain horrible weapons...and will he use them as soon as he has them?

Comments, anyone?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

The irony of insulting America is that Canadian and American culture have been blending together for a long time. I don't think we're the same but there are some definite similarities. We are constantly influenced by their media. This is perhaps unnerving for those who feel nationalistically distinct but it's hard to stop the diffusion of (popular) culture by international borders these days. 

My point? Your problems with America also exist in Canada to varying extents. Sure we aren't instigating war but we aren't a military superpower. Read the post on the new proposed Immigration cards. Canada moving towards a police state?  While I don't like the bipartisan system in the U.S., the domination of the corrupt federal Liberals is no better.

As for war, I'm a pacificist. I'd prefer if there were no war. However, who will stand up for the suffering people of Iraq? Saddam has murdered countless people? He's a humanitarian nightmare. Where do you do draw the line? I agree there may be more ideal means of extracting Saddam but none of these options seem plausible on the world stage at present. 

Ultimately, it seems that frustration arises because politicians are lying on all sides. The importance of the oil is not being acknowledged. Germany and France wouldn't mention that they do a lot of trade in questionable components (that can build arms) to Iraq. Saddam denies the weapons (bio or other) he's likely hiding. And the list goes on. It'd be amazing if all the governments would just be totally honest in their doings and motivations. But I think it'd more likely that this whole message board switch to PCs (. . . Dells) first.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Dr.G.Macnutt and Crytical Cinic, it is good to know that we have returned to some thoughtful, intelligent conversation. 

As a U.S.citizen I am not pleased with the Bush administration, but it looks like a war is looming on the horizon. It is my hope that Macnutt is correct in stating that it will be a very short invasion.It is the follow-up that concerns me.Do you have any comments?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One additional comment.

I just re-read your post Lotus...and I realise that I didn't comment on your thoughts about the aftermath of the US invasion.

Short answer? I don't know. 

Not enough data and too many variables to pick out a pattern. At least for me.

However, I do know how it *could* turn out...if things go as planned.

Two weeks or a month from now, Saddam is gone...one way or another. He is probably packing right now. 

Or not.

Either way...his family and top command structure (toadies) are locked up, on the run, or as dead as Kevin Costners directing career.

This is what SHOULD happen next...

The US has several groups of expatriate Iraqis waiting in the wings to run for office in a free Iraq. IF elections are called. IF that's the direction that Iraq heads in once it is all over.

No one can tell at this point.

In an ideal world, the whole situation could be a lot like post-war Japan or Germany. The US would set up some sort of temporary military governor and start repairing the place. They would slowly loosen control as the Iraqis became able to handle their own affairs. Eventually, the country would become a self-determining democracy...a rather wealthy one, by the way. Probably with "most favored Nation" trade status, if history is any indication.

This is the way the US has treated other defeated nations who have the necessary components in place to become a democracy.

Japan and Germany are good examples of a defeated enemy who are now totally self-determining democracies with some of the best economies on the planet.

No way of telling if this will happen in Iraq's case. Like I said...too many variables.

But, if it did...then this might be one of the very best ways to bring lasting stability to the whole region. It would be a fine example for the rest of the people in the Middle East. They would see how well Iraq was doing....and want that for themselves.

And George Bush would be looked upon very well, by future historians.

Think he hasn't thought about all of this? Think his VERY experienced staff haven't thought about all of this?

The President who finally brings peace and stability to the Middle East would be thought of in the same light, and considered as heroic a figure as....well...the President who was most responsible for ending the Cold War, bringing down the Berlin Wall, and freeing half of Europe from Communist opression.

He would be in fine company, indeed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, thank you for your compliment. An ehMacLand national treasure? Not quite. Still, while I will joke in The Monster Thread, I feel I should balance this humor with a touch of common sense when needed, in my humble opinion.

Lotus, where were you born/living in the US?


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Central Illinois/Bloomington and Chicago


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

I keep reading from the "lets do the war" crowd that we have to DO SOMETHING about Saddam and Iraq. Saddam is a bad man, no doubt about that. He received help from the US in the 80's, built his chemical weapon programme with help from the US, and fought a proxy war against Iran for the US. What does that make US foreign policy?

Should we take military action against Saddam? Why? Saddam is currently contained. He is not a threat to the West. He continues to be an evil prick, but so was Nixon and Kissinger. 

What did Saddam do to attract the attention of the US? There is no evidence that he is using terrorism againt the west. There is no evidence that he has anything other than short range missles. There is no evidence he is staging for an attack on another of his neighbours.

Should there be regime change in Iraq? Of course. Should that change come at the end of an American gun? No.

The rhetoric about Saddam being an imminent threat to America is just so much hot air.

France and Russia have signed agreements in place regarding Iraqi oil, waiting for the UN embargo to be lifted. A forced regime change by the US would toss those agreements out the window, and Chevron and Texaco would be the new oil barons in Iraq. Hence the "old Europe" desire for a peaceful solution.

There is also the problem of the war not being contained. There is every indication that this may very well lead to something much wider and more dangerous if the US acts unilaterally and not with the UN. 

Give peace a chance. March if you want, it makes for good television. Write letters to your MP and to the PM stating whether Canada should/should not go to war. And if you think we should go to war, feel free to lobby Ottawa to spend an extra 3 billion dollars a year on defence.

On an issue of this importance, we need to let our "leaders" know where we stand. What good is democracy, if we don't use it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Lotus, my doxies, Daisy and Rootie are from Libertyville, IL. They are very partiotic doxies -- "First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of their countrymen."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah Britnell, now there is some insight into what a lot of the world are concerned about. Good post.
It's meddling in the first place that has caused so much grief - the list is endless and not just US meddling but right now they are the only current Imperial power. Look for Europe and China to perhaps offset that and right now we are seeing the thin edge of that wedge as Europe and the US are taking different approaches.
Iraq is a sovereign nation under distress from a dictatorial regime and the people of Iraq deserve all the support they can get in dealing with Saddam.
BUT my guess is if you asked them privately, Saddam or war - they might choose the current slow erosion of his power instead of being subject to another war.
I do think that the surrounding states also fear a serious unsettling of the regional power structure and they also fear US meddling....they might be next.
My underlying fear is of the US not Iraq.
I think that is what many in the world feel as well.
IF the UN agrees that military intervention in the situation is justified then as a part of the power projection of the UN I would support Canada's role which at this point can only be in a post military manner.

One of the items cited here and frequently is that Saddam used nerve gas on his own citizens. The "incubator" story was false. So has the "gassed his own people story". Turns out it was Iran responsible for that particular horror.

Too much uncertainty, too many suspect motives, way too much meddling.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I wholeheartedly agree Lotus. I think a little less ideologically-driven and somewhat innaccurate rhetoric, and a little more thoughtful insight would be in order if we are to examine this question like thinking individuals.

Lets discuss and analyse what has become the dominant news item of the last few weeks without bashing away at a friendly country or trying to change the subject to some other topic that has nothing to do with this one.

This is VERY important. At least it is in my mind. Judging by the amount of air-time it is getting on all of the news channels all over the world (I have satellite TV) it must be just about the most important thing that is happening...or is about to happen..._anywhere_.

(BTW-Michael...oddly enough, there is no mention of China.)

So what do those of you in the "no war" camp say about all of this? Is it better to do nothing...and hope Saddam just goes away?

Is he not a threat? Now, and as long as he remains? Does he not condone and finance the killings of innocent Israelis on a daily basis? Do you wish to see this continue? How would you stop it if the US backs down?

By negotiating with Saddam?

Another UN resolution, perhaps? (Actually, that might look good on his mantlepiece...it would go well with the other dozen or so he hasn't obeyed)

I'm really interested in what everyone has to say here. If any of you are really thinking about attending some sort of Peace March...then please let the rest of us know what it is that you think you might accomplish, if it were sucessful.

Seriously.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I'll second the "good post" for Britnell.

Macnutt, your suggestion of what should happen is interesting, but given our experience of does happen, we can all say with certainty that what "should" happen, invariably "doesn't happen."

I also think your "should" ignores particular concerns that likely will happen if there is a war, particularly the use by a desperate Saddam of those WMDs and the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of decent, ordinary people. I am far more reluctant than you to sentence them to "death by war" for the sake of toppling Saddam, at least until the UN has fully pursued all other options.

I agree with your assertion that the *"US has several groups of expatriate Iraqis waiting in the wings to run for office in a free Iraq. IF elections are called." * But I'll take it a step further for you and say they'll be there to run the office before elections are call and those elections, if they ever are called, won't be any more balanced or representative than Saddam's.

Your example of a resurgence and democratic Japan and Germany of post-war American benevolence is a one-war example and doesn't prove your point. Where was the benevolence in Cuba, Mexico or post-First World War Germany?

I'll let future historians judge GW's record for themselves. But I don't think he or many of the people in his administration have thought about the future other than in ways to achieve their own aims, which are not necessarily the aims or needs of Iraqis or people in the region. Historical, U.S. foreign policy has almost always been based on their own percieved short-term needs -- that's how the world ends up with many Saddams. 

Again I ask why now? What has happened in the last six months, year, two years or more that has not only turned this into the U.S.'s No. 1 priority, but something that demands nothing less than the extreme of war now?

Make your case.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good post Britnell. Same goes for the thoughtful insights from Brainstrained and macdoc.  

"What has happened that suddenly made Saddam a threat"

What event, indeed, has occurred in the past year or so that could possibly focus the whole world's attention upon a dictator who finances and trains terrorists? What could possibly wake up "the sleeping giant" and put them on an all-out offensive to eliminate all threats, _before_ they turn into deadly action?

Think back to september of 2001....

A little clearer now?

Macdoc, I have to disagree with you on the gassing of the Kurds. The UN says that it was Saddam that committed that post-Gulf War horror. Weapons inspectors have already checked out his helicopter fleet (in the first days of inspections) and we have all seen the spray-bar system that was installed in order to deliver chemical/biological weapons from the air. These helicopters looked very well-used, by the way.


Someone mentioned that, one of the reasons we do not want to attack Saddam, is because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on everyone, once he is cornered.

My thoughts on this are.....

You've just _made_ my case.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Sept. 11?

A convenient excuse that holds little water and certainly falls far short of justifying a second war. It wasn't a strong justification for the first -- Afghanistan.

GW didn't "discover" Iraq until six months ago, well after 9/11. And the closest the U.S. links Saddam to that nightmare is to say he sponsors terrorists.

The link between Saddam and El Quaeda is highly speculative and lacks credibility. And if the U.S. is turning its guns on countries that finance and supply terrorists, they'll have to turn their guns on themselves.

You can do better, can't you Macnutt?

What's the real justification? Saddam's real or mythical WMDs? 

Let me get your rationale straight. The U.S. will invade Iraq, provoking Saddam to use whatever weapons are his disposal, such as WMDs, so that he won't be able to use those WMDs?

If we don't want him to use those weapons then our first and foremost effort should be in working aggressively to disarm him (something that didn't start until recently), not provoking him to use them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry...I have to disagree.

Sept 11th was masterminded by, and the principals were trained in, Afghanistan. That country was in the hands of a committed terrorist government at the time. It was where Usama had his headquarters. This is not in dispute.

Afghanistan, while not totally sorted out yet, is no longer a suitable base for this sort of attack on the "infidels of the west" by such as Usama and Co. They've had to move out.

They've also had a lot of their assets siezed. Money and bank accounts around the world have been frozen. There is a rather short list of countries where these people could go...a slightly longer one from which they could draw the necessary funding to continue the terrorist attacks.

Iraq...under Saddam..is high on both of those lists. He is also a festering problem that just won't go away. And anyone who thinks he is "contained" is not examining the facts. Or doesn't have any relatives in Israel. 

Iran is also a potential problem...so is North Korea. Each will be dealt with in due course. Iran, as I have said before, is taking care of itself...there will probably be a regime change there within the coming months or years,

North Korea is a totally different problem. The threat there comes more from the technology that they are willing to sell to people like Saddam. Stuff like long-range missiles and even, possibly, weapons-grade nuclear material. They are quite capable of doing this, and Saddam has been an eager customer in the past.

North Korea's current threatening stance is worrisome, but China, Japan, the USA and even South Korea have a great interest in countering any action that Kim Jong Il might take to preserve his crumbling nightmare of a government.

In his address to the Nation right after 9/11, George W. said that ALL nations who sponsor terror will be dealt with.

One at a time. In order of importance.

Saddam is next on the list.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

My first-ever Safari crash wiped out my long, thoughtful and erudite reply... Brainstrain in the meantime beat me to the punch in raising the red flag over 9/11 being a justification for taking on Iraq.

The CIA has even admitted to not having evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Iraq, which brings into question Powell's assertions at the U.N. Unless, of course, he based that link on a UK document which... oh, um, well, never mind... 

Powell also indicated that a 'terrorist training base' was indeed located in Iraq... in the Kurdish-controlled northern no-Fly zone area (where U.S. forces are already on the ground, and the CIA has been operating for some time). The U.S. still hasn't adequately explained why they haven't taken out a known terrorist training camp, since (a) they know where it is (b) they have forces on the ground and in the air who could do it easily.

As for the question of what we peaceniks would do in place of the planned war; Containment. Beef up the restrictions upon which Iraq can participate in the regional / global economy. All sales / purchases authorized by an international body. Enhanced border security around Iraq by its neighbours with multinational forces. Lock the country down. Allow full trade of goods and services which are needed for the people to survive, but restrict completely any materials which could be used for weapons.

Surely that will cost less --in both monetary and human terms-- than allowing the U.S. to fulfill its bloodlust....

M


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hmmm...a blockade that would only allow trade goods but no weapons, or materials that could be turned into weapons.

"Lock down the country"

Sounds a bit like Cuba, eh?

I disagree that it would be more cost effective, Mark. It sounds terribly expensive, very long-term, and would be open to abuse (bribes) in order to get money out and bad stuff in.

And it doesn't provide any relief for the people of Iraq. Probably no less blood money to the suicide bombers in Israel either.

Of course, an all-out war would be quite expensive as well. If that were what the US is planning. Everything I have read, everyone I have talked to on the inside about this, says the very same thing...

Saddam is the target. He will be the focus of the American effort, not the people of Iraq. Saddam will be target number one, on hour number one of this conflict. 

It will only involve the people of Iraq if they choose to fight to the death for Saddam.

Think they will? History says otherwise.

Either way, a decisive regime change will be the very best thing that could happen for the Iraqis, and for everyone else.

A blockade won't do it. Just ask Fidel.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW-good to have you back Mark.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

I am not as qualified as the rest of you to get involved in any in depth discussions. I have too many questions and not enough answers.

For too many years my friends only concerns have been why don't you want to go to Bingo tonight? Is your doctor better than mine? It's the 29th and my pension cheque isn't here. No, I'm not going to vote. Not exactly stimulating conversation. This is not a new phenomenon, when first arriving in Toronto I was shocked that no one was interested in what was happening beyond the borders of the GTA.Complacent Canadians! When this gets too, too boring I turn to ehMac or call my sister in the states to put things in perspective. God,I wish she had a computer, with my phone bills maybe I could afford to buy one for her.It is encouraging to know so many of you are giving serious thought to world conditions.

The United Nations was first formed to resist Soviet aggression and now Fance, Germany, Belgium and the rest of the world (according to the latest polls) are questioning U.S. aggression.

Is Saddam a threat - yes
Did the U.S. support Saddam when he was fighting Iran - yes
Will his removal really change anything - maybe
After the Bin Laden tape today will war with Iraq only unleash total chaos in the middle east - probably
My mother us to say the next major war would be in the middle east, Was she right - possibly
Are France and Germany concerned about their oil contracts - yes
Do they trust the U.S. - no.

After WWII Japan and Germany prosperred, but Bush is no Harry Truman. During the 2000 Campaign Bush stated he had no interest in peace keeping. Who will pick up the pieces? Franks says the military is prepared to provide food and medicine to Iraq, but the usual relief organizations don't have a clue what preparations have been made.

Bush has rejected the International Criminal Court, pulled out of Kyoto and is trying to block the WTO from allowing poor countries to produce cheap generic drugs. The promise of millions to fight Aids in Africa sounds good, but at U.S. drug prices just how many will benefit.

What bothers me is that a year ago Bin Laden was the major threat, they couldn't find him so Saddam was next in line. Why? Does Wag the Dog come to mind? Who is next on the list?

We have too many politicians and not enough statesmen. When Adlai Stevenson helped formulate the doctrine for the United Nations he said "this will be our only ultimate shield against disastrous war. Man in his civil society has learned how to live under the law with the institutions of justice, and controlled strength that can protect rich and poor, weak and strong alike. In this century, for the first time in human history, we are attepting the same safeguards, the same framework of justice, the same sense of law and impartial protection in the whole wide society of Man. Either we shall make grow and flourish or I do not know what power or institution can save us".

This is where my son would say MOM, HOW ABOUT THOSE MAPLE LEAFS?

So thanks for letting me vent, but now it's time to relax and watch the Nascar Daytona practice.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Anyone remember MAD? The nuclear doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, which kept the US and the USSR from destroying each other. Or so the theory goes.

Chemical and Biological weapons are poor battlefield weapons. They are difficult to deliver, difficult to contain, and blow away far to quickly to deny an enemy the use of the battlefield for long.

Iraq's WMD or CBW collection should not be used as an excuse to start a war. Unless you want to start a war with the USA which has a sizable CBW and nuclear collection of its own.

One of the problems with a march into Bagdad is that it gives Iraq the excuse to use WMD. Just as if the US had been nuked, there will be retaliation.

My fear is that a US campaign will lead to WMD being used on Israel, Israel will retaliate, the Arab nations will have to respond and attack Israel and probably US troops, Iran will enter from the west to try to take Iraqi areas and to contain the US from grabbing the oil fields. 

While everyone is busy looking at the middle east, Pakistan and India may decide to have a go, and be careful of nukes getting tossed about there. If India/Pakistan get into it, watch for North Korea to make some desprite gamble, and watch for China to "look after its own interests".

Bush's own military has warned him not to let lose the dogs of war. The CIA and the FBI have repeatedly not found a link between 9/11 and Iraq. The CIA has repeatedly suggested that attacking Iraq may very well cause terrorist attacks to occur in the US.

Meanwhile, in a bid to have domestic "security", the US is moving to a Owellian Big Brother State, using Iraq as an excuse. The tail is wagging the dog.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

lotus, that was a great post!  And britnell, I agree with your perspective on the "orwillian state."  Both posts were nice reads. 

timmer


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt -- yes, good to be back, but I'm restraining myself (thesisthesisthesisthesisthesisthesis)...

I shouldn't have to point this out, but...

the Blockade of Cuba: The United Nations has voted for nine consecutive years in support of a Cuban resolution condemning the blockade. The U.S. stands alone (well, except client state Israel and development-money-hungry Marshall Islands) in its imposition of this stupid bit of pandering to the Right.

I suspect "Managed Commerce" of Iraq (quite a different concept) would have far more support at the U.N. than two members.

It may be unworkable, I may be hopelessly naïve, but at least I'm trying to put out there an alternative to death and destruction...

M.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt, we'll have to disagree.

That rationale for war is at best weak and fails to convince me that the UN has exhausted other options.

George Bush will have to do better than that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Awesome post, Lotus! You show a very keen awareness of the bigger picture. My complements.   

Now..into the fray!

Everyone here keeps referring to some sort of "all out war". Pitched battles, invading infantry, massed tank brigades, rocket barrages and the like.

Saddam is planning for just such an eventuality.

Everyone is "still fighting the last war". Using what we know from past battles and applying that to future conflicts. This is a standard human reaction and...up until recently, has had some basis in fact.

Time and technology change. Lately, the changes have been rather rapid, indeed.

Classes are taught at West Point, Annapolis, and the War College that use a scenario of "removing Saddam with minimal casualties" as one of their main excercises. Some of the brightest young minds for the last decade have been trying to beat their peers at this particular "game". 

Well...it's not a game anymore...and all of this collected data has been studied to death, analysed, planned for, and special equipment has been specifically designed for, just this task.

And you can bet that people like Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell et al have thought about every possible move that could be made by all involved. This is the greatest brain trust that has ever served in the White House. They have a "plan B", a "plan C"...right on down to "Plan Z".

Bet on it.

Things could go wrong...there could be all sorts of complications. Saddam has been seen recently, on satellite imaging, to be moving his most sensitive military gear into heavily populated areas in order to use innocent people as sheilds.

This is even more reason why the whole thing has to happen very fast...VERY fast...and it has to start at the top, and work it's way down.

Otherwise there could, indeed, be a disaster. 

I'm confident that the US wouldn't move unless they knew damn well that there was a very good chance at a quick victory. 

As for the contention that Saddam might unleash any sort of WOMD...

All I can say is, if he truly has these...and is not just working very hard to produce or procure them...then we need to move very fast indeed. How long would it be before some of this horror found it's way into the hands of someone who would bring it here. Or deploy it in a crowded spot in Europe? (I'm talking about using WOMD against a civilian population...not on a battlefield.)

Not long. History has taught us this.

Think about it. Then tell me, again, that we should just leave him be.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW-just a point or two of clarification Mark. There are a whole LOT of us over here on the right who are totally opposed to the continuing US policy on Cuba. It makes no sense...has not worked..and, ultimately gives Fidel an excuse for the shortages. (this is one of the main reasons that I think such a blockade will do nothing to "contain" Saddam. In fact...it could make him stronger)

Quite a large number of Republican senators have been urging the President to relax his stance on Cuba. They got a bit of trade started...but that's it so far.

It is more of a question of politics than a "right wing" issue. And if you want to blame any identifiable group for the continuing "blockade"...then aim your sights on the Cuban-born Americans who live in Florida. They will vote against any politician who tries to end the blockade...en masse. And, as you know, Florida can be a pivotal state in any major election.

I have dozens of friends in the US...both left and right...and not a solitary ONE of them wants to continue this charade. No one I have ever spent time talking to about this down there wants it to continue either. Not one.

Convince the Cubans in Florida to change their minds, and you will have new US policy on Cuba. We, of the right, are already convinced.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt, I think it comes dowm to the fact you have far more confidence in the U.S. administration and military than most other posters here.

We hear the stuff of your last two posts -- things have changed, we know better, we're more advanced, technology has improved -- before every conflct. 

And the final result still ends up with more civilians killed for dubious benefits. 

War is and should be a last resort. At this stage I am not prepared to support war until other options have been shown futile.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Just read this story in The Globe & Mail onHow the U.S. will govern Iraq.

So much for letting the Iraqis decide their own fate. As I said in a previous post, American concern about the Islamic Fundamentalists (i.e. Shiites, who comprise a substantial portion of the populations), the fears of Arab neighbours and the need to protect the oil resources will preclude any real democratic government.

I particularly like the quote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "While we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us, the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States," Mr. Grossman said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Another great quote from the article brainstrained. 

Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, told the Senate foreign relations committee that a U.S. military occupation could last "two years" and would involve American control over civilian ministries and the Iraqi oil industry. He played down any hope for the Iraqi opposition playing a major role.

"control over the Iraqi oil industry." 

thanks for the link. 
timmer


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Hey, MacNutt! If this isn't all about U.S. control / access to oil, then why isn't this post-Saddam regime the U.S. wants to impose made up of anyone other than U.S. military men?

Seems to me that if a 'regime' must be 'installed' to govern the country until Iraqis are able to take the reins of power, then the nature of that regime should be determined and implemented by the United Nations, not the United States.

Of course, the U.S. would 'manage' Iraq in a fair and nonpartisan manner, I'm sure... regardless of any potential negative impact on U.S. interests in the region, certainly....  

M


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It takes quite a while to start up a democracy in a country that has not had one before. If the US were to step away a few months after removing a murderous despot, then the place would be ripe for some other individual or power hungry group to grab the top spot and we'd be right back where we started.

And all of this pre-supposes that the Iraqis will even _want_ a free society.

(I happen to think they will...but it's just a guess at this point)

So...if at least two years of US/UN military rule is too long, then I just have to ask...

How long was Japan under military rule after WW2? Germany?

Both of those countries could easily have become a threat again, had some new group siezed power and rallied the Nation to attck their neighbors again.

As democracies where the people vote on the direction their country takes, they have been singularly peaceful places. Democratic populations will almost always vote against war, unless they are directly threatened. Witness the recent polls in the US and Canada. It is by no means unanimous in the USA, even with Saddam as an obvious threat.

This model is what the Americans would prefer for Iraq. A free and self-determining country with lots of wealth to build a new society. One that would be looked upon with envy by all of the other countries in the area. Iran may go this way on its own in the coming days. That would make two good examples, and an overwhelming desire for this sort of peace and prosperity by everyone in the Middle East could put an end to the sort of violence and poverty that seem so endmic in that area of the world.

And, yes, the Americans will probably get the oil. They will _buy it_ at whatever the going price...just as they do from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. This will provide the seed money to turn Iraq into a wealthy democracy. 

Open trade, and an exchange of wealth for resources/products is exactly what has worked in the past when the US wanted to turn an old adversary into a friend. Trading partners rarely wage all-out war on each other these days.

Examples: Japan, Germany, and perhaps most importantly..China.

I see no reason why this model won't be used in the case of Iraq. It works.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> posted by macnutt

Time and technology change. Lately, the changes have been rather rapid, indeed.

Classes are taught at West Point, Annapolis, and the War College that use a scenario of "removing Saddam with minimal casualties" as one of their main excercises. Some of the brightest young minds for the last decade have been trying to beat their peers at this particular "game". 

Well...it's not a game anymore...and all of this collected data has been studied to death, analysed, planned for, and special equipment has been specifically designed for, just this task.

And you can bet that people like Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell et al have thought about every possible move that could be made by all involved. This is the greatest brain trust that has ever served in the White House. They have a "plan B", a "plan C"...right on down to "Plan Z". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there are 4 Canadian families in particular that would disagree that the U.S. military has learned a lot in the past while and is better, smarter and faster.

I refer, of course, to the senseless deaths of 4 brave Canadian soliders killed by a U.S. pilot (Top Gun graduate - "the best of the best") who dropped a 500 lb. bomb on them. Eight other Canadian soliders were wounded.

It is incidents like these that make me distrust the U.S. military and it's claims of "precision, surgical" strikes via air.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"Friendly Fire" incidents happen in every military campaign. This has been happening since the dawn of armed conflict. 

A sad fact, but true.

You know what? They'll probably happen in the upcoming Iraq conflict. It is especially easy for these things to happen at night....and that is when the US chooses to do most of their fighting these days. The US forces have several ways of signalling that they are "the good guys" to their own ground support pilots...ours did not.

You can worry yourself into a froth about this, if you'd like...you can say that we shouldn't send anyone in at all, if there is the slightest chance they'll be killed. By friendly fire or enemy fire.

But that's not going to get the job done, is it? They are all volunteers...just like the crew of the Space Shuttle. They know the risks.

My advice? Get over it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW- The US has started dropping leaflets on the Iraqis...hundreds of thousands of them...and they are saying pretty much what I've been telling you these last few days.

The leaflets tell the Iraqis that they will not be fired upon if they choose not to fight, and that the US has no desire to destroy any of their landmarks, etc.

The message is this: "Saddam is the target...not the people of Iraq. Help us and you will be fine. Shoot at us and you will die" (SWAT teams often yell the same thing over loudspeakers, just before they go in)

Considering how much more powerful the Iraqi military was back in 1991...and how fast they surrendered back then...I suspect that this will be a surprisingly short conflict. (They are seriously demoralised this time out, and have no doubts about how outclassed they are).

Especially if Saddam is neutralised in the first hours of the attack, and if that fact is well-known to the Iraqi people.

Let us hope.

Final BTW...the dropping of leaflets and the fact that NATO is showing visible rifts makes me think that this whole thing will be happening within the next few days to a week or so, on the outside.

Move it or lose it. It's down to the wire, now.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

So it is a full moon on the 16th, does that mean they will attack on the 1st or 2nd of March when flying conditions will be the best?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Lotus, I honestly think that the US would prefer total darkness. The slogan that I am hearing from friends in the military is "we OWN the night". A full moon is not necessary for the US forces to see exactly what they are doing...and might give them away, if the opposition could see _them_.

I think that George W. is just waiting for the Haj...the muslim pilgramage to the Holy Land (Mecca)...to be over and everyone safely back in their own countries. To attack during a Holy pilgramage might just stir up a lot of extra problems that he doesn't need right now.

He has to make a move soon...further delays will just widen the rifts that are beginning to show in NATO, and give a lot of people a lot of time to think up even more reasons to back off. Both at home and in the rest of the world.

This would not be a good thing. If the US were to fold up their tent and move out, then Saddam would consider it a great sign of weakness and a definite indicator of a lack of resolve. So would a lot of other people in the region.

Saddam would go back to thumbing his nose at the UN and probably try to arrange the purchase of some of those new long-range missiles that North Korea has just announced.

This is not a good thing. Not at all.

If I had to guess...and it is ONLY a guess...I would say that the attack will come sometime after the 15th. That's when the UN weapons inspectors will give their final report on Iraqi co-operation. It won't be favorable.

If I were running the show, I would try to make it after the full moon. Perhaps middle of next week. Perhaps sooner.

Too many variables, and I do not have all of the data...so don't take this as anything but a guess.

But the leaflet thing is usually done only a short time before an attack, so you might take that into consideration.

Lets all hope that it goes well.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> posted by macnutt:

My advice? Get over it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am so embarrassed and ashamed by your cavalier attitude towards the deaths of 4 brave fellow Canadians at the hands of an American pilot.

They died in vain and for no reason other than for some U.S. pilot getting his "rocks off."

I expected that you, an alleged world traveler and proud Canadian, to be much more sympathetic and understanding.

The reaction of the American people and news media to the deaths of the astronauts was huge.

The reaction of the American people and news media to the deaths of "our boys" was hardly mentioned. Except, for media spin to justify the pilot's "error."

There was no public outcry, no 24 hour coverage by CNN, no somber presidential statement. Nada. Only a brief statement after his aides realized his political gaffe.

You may say; " My advice? Get over it."

Easy to say from the cheap seats. 

Never mind disrespectful and downright callous.

I wonder if you would have the gall to say that to a family member of one of the 4 dead soldiers? I would expect, and properly so, for one of them to punch you right in the mouth. 

For me it is and will be; "Je me souviens."


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

You always come up with such insight, but we have a lack of communication. Full moon is the 16th and there is no way they will attack then. Dark of the moon is on March 2nd, so I would assume that would be the logical time.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Lotus, March 2cnd would be a good date if the amount of light were the only factor involved. I suspect that other things may be weighing this decision. 

The US needs some sort of definitive moment...a further piece of proof that Saddam is in material breach of all of the UN resolutions. (he is, already, but that's beside the point)

That moment may come right after the UN weapons inspectors table their report. We may see some limited incursions into Iraq this weekend. Or a full-scale attack.

Or...they may wait until the second of March. That's two weeks away, and a LOT can happen in two weeks.

I'm bettin on sooner, rather than later.

But again...it's just a guess.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Michael...I hate that this horrible event ever happened. I bet that all involved wish to God that they could turn back the clock and change things.

But they can't.

Unfortunately, out there in the real world, soldiers are sometimes called on to fight...and sometimes they die. All too often, they die because of a mistake that someone else made. 

It's a terrible thing...but it happens. It has occurred in every single conflict that has ever happened on this planet, and I'll bet you that it will happen again, in the future.

It doesn't make it right...it's just the way it is.

Deal with it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...if everyone out there wants to stop the killing of innocent people...Canadian or otherwise... then I humbly suggest that we all pray that Saddam, and every other murderous despot on this green earth, is rooted out and removed from power.

Sooner...rather than later.

THAT is the only way to really stop the killing, and torture, and opression.

THAT is the only way to stop this obscene aberration that has absoloutely NO place in the twenty-first century. 

People of all races and backgrounds, everywhere on earth, should be allowed to live their lives in peace and prosperity...not in fear and poverty.

To attain this, some very good people will have to give their lives. 

It's a terrible price to pay, no doubt.


We should salute those of us who choose to put themselves in harm's way, just so the rest of us can enjoy a better world. We should grieve when they die in this endeavor...for they have given all that they have, in order to make this a better world.

But, if we stop the struggle after the first few have given their lives...then we will have betrayed all that they stood for... and forgotten the very reasons why we are in this struggle. And why they have given their lives and their futures....

We will have forgotten why they died, and what they were trying to do.

Do you really want that? I don't.

And I won't forget them....or what they have given to all of us. 

Will you?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Final BTW...to all of you who are considering attending a "Peace Rally" in the coming days.

Think VERY HARD before you commit yourself to any activism. 

Will you be stopping a war...or just giving the terrible tyrants who are committing all of the horrors a bit of breathing room? 

Will you be helping to STOP the criminal acts...or just helping to prolong the suffering?

Are you helping the cops to prevent a crime from happening...or helping the criminals to continue committing them?

Who's side are you really on?

Think about it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Absolutely my final BTW....

Yes, Michael, I am a world traveler. And I have lived and worked in several places where there was a war going on. I have been a witness to fire fights...as a neutral party. But, oddly, that didn't keep me from being a target. Nobody was actually aiming at ME. 

But that didn't make a whole lot of difference when the shooting started 

It is a horrible thing. Trust me on this. You do NOT want to be there when the bullets start flying. It gets ugly within a few short seconds. And nobody really knows what is going on. It is the scariest thing you can ever witness..or be a part of. 

And it doesn't matter one bit that you don't want to be a part of it. It's happening anyway. You are THERE..and you are are involved...doesn't matter what you want. You are a PART of it.

It is terribly frightening. The scariest thing you could ever imagine.

And...yes..your life DOES flash before your eyes.

You think of other places you'd like to be...and other wonderful moments you have experienced. This all happens within a few short seconds. You think to youself..("Please God...ANYWHERE but HERE")

You hear angry bees flying past your head (bullets), wierd pinging sounds (bullets ricocheting against buildings) and people you don't even know...who are standing very near to you...explode into a purple splash.

It makes you want to puke.

Then..at first, you get really scared, you want to run, but you are frozen in place...and then you get really MAD.

Then you get downright INDIGNANT!

Why would another human actually DO this to a fellow human? This is what you ask yourself. (it all happens VERY fast)

Then you start wondering what you can do to STOP this insanity! All you know is that it MUST be STOPPED! As soon as possible!!

Then it gets very quiet...and you just hear the sounds of people who have been terribly hurt. They cry...then you cry for them. It is horrid. It is inhuman.

You want to scream out loud...WHY??!!

And then, later...MUCH later...you wonder why ANYONE would want to march and protest against the idea of stopping this nonsense. The people who protest simply do not KNOW what is really going on!!

Call me crazy...but that's what I think.

It's crossed my mind several times when I was in Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Paraguey, Uruguay, Peru, El salvador, Belize, (don't even ASK me about Trinidad..too scary) Bolivia, et al.... 

I thought to myself...we have GOT to stop this!!! This is CRAZY and INHUMAN!!

And it's what I STILL thought, once I came back to Canada.

I thought "This HAS to END!" People have to know what this is REALLY all about!

I still do. To this very day. 

Stopping this insanity and the inhuman treatment of innocent people is job number ONE! The first priority!!

We absoloutely HAVE to DO something about this!

And it WON'T be done by defending the dictators, and demonising the democracies...who are trying to fix the problem! Some of our best and brightest are fighting to change this. We need to support them!

Do you REALLY want to support the people who are behind all of this??

If you want to prolong the terror, and you are considering marching in protest against the free democracies that are trying to end this insanity...then this is a really good way to do it!

Think about this...when you march for "peace".

You may only be helping to prolong the suffering! And...if you like it or not...you may be helping the bad guys to continue heaping the horrors on everyone invoved.

One thing is for sure...you will NOT be helping to solve the problem!

The "Bad Guys" aren't listening to you....trust me.

Every time you "March for Peace", Saddam and his ilk are just cheering you on...and hoping you succeed.

Still want to "March for Peace"??

Think again.

Your choice.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I just have to say this....

Brasil and Cuba are totally different. I never saw or experienced any sort of violence in these two countries.

Strangely enough...these are the two places that I have visited when not actually sent there for work. I actually PAID to go there. 

In both places,the people are outstanding. I would...and WILL... visit both of these countries in the future.

I would recommend Brasil and Cuba to anyone who wanted to really see Latin America....and who didn't want any real hassels.

Both places are really special...in ways that cannot be easily described.

Go there and see for yourself.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

After a day's absence from this thread, I see it's down to a lonely voice lost in winds of war.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Brainstrained, Macnutt is not alone. While he and I may disagree on certain things, agree on other things, he still helps to bring balance to this thread.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Jane's Defence Weekly - "Iraq: The Great Gamble"

Jane's has the best independant military analysis in the world.

Iraq: The Great Gamble


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Dr. G., all due respect to you and Macnutt







, but in more than 24 hours there were only five posts in this thread, all from Macnutt.  

I'd say not only has Macnutt become a lonely advocate of war, but one few here are paying attention to any more.

Again, no slam intended. Just an observation. Maybe it will pick up now that you and Macsprectrum are back.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Brainstrained, while I do not advocate war, nor openly support war, I can see some of the points being made by MacNutt. Thus, what he says keeps the debate moving along in a positive direction. As for one-sided postings, I have to admit that I have done this myself in other threads. Still, that is all part of freedom of speech. One need not read anything that anyone has written, nor agree with certain things that were written, but I have no problems with MacNutt speaking his mind.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

So... looks like none of my fellow ehMac Toronto and surrounding area members will join in the march other than Garyola and MaxWell. What if we had a party afterwards?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I wish to clarify something here...

I do not "advocate war".

I have a hard time with anyone who says that I do. Read the previous posts.

What I DO advocate, is the removal of all threats to innocent people...wherever they may be.

This will take some sort of military action.

But I don't think it will be very much like a "war". And I truly believe that it is necessary. 

There is no other way.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with MacNutt. While I too do not advocate war, nor feel that war is inevitable, there is a covert threat that will take place if nothing is done to counteract this threat. I do not trust Hussein, and he has certainly not earned any trust. If given half a chance, everything they have hidden will be "sent" to Israel. I do feel that there needs to be an accounting for all of the biological weapons that they did have, and which has now suddenly disappeared. We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> posted by macnut:

Final BTW...to all of you who are considering attending a "Peace Rally" in the coming days.

Think VERY HARD before you commit yourself to any activism.

...

Who's side are you really on?

Think about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Activism on the behalf of peace is now being questioned as being unpatriotic.

I wouldn't have believed it if I had not read it myself.

John Lennon is rolling over in his grave.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt, having read all the previous posts, its kind of hard not to come away thinking that you advocate war. Sorry, but that is the feeling I get from your typed words. 
I abhore violence at all costs and see no way to justify war in this instance. "What ifs" are a very slippery road to start going down. If Saddam was crazy enough to attack anyone, that would be enough for the US to attack and rule Iraq. (their ultimate goal IMHO)
I believe there has to be real proof before an action is taken. The Powell report was so lackluster that I immediately thought, "you must be kidding". I personally could fabricate that evidence on my Mac. 
Patience and a cool head is what is called for here. Errors could lead to nuclear war and then we all lose. 
Robert


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> * This will take some sort of military action.
But I don't think it will be very much like a "war". And I truly believe that it is necessary. 
There is no other way. 
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I see, not a war but a "police action" like Korea.









If bombs get dropped, missiles launched, soldiers shoot at each other, a country is invaded, civilians killed . . . it's a war.

Pretty much every "peace activist" who has posted in this thread has criticized Saddam and agreed measures need to be taken to remove the threat he poses. They disagree with your point that *"There is no other way."*

For you to question which side they're on because they disagree, raises more questions about your loyalities than their's.

I know whose side I'm on and it certainly doesn't appear to be yours.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So what would you do to neutralise the threat that Saddam obviously poses to all of us?

Another UN resolution?

Perhaps I could refer you to Dr. G's most recent post. He seems to be able to recognise the threat and also seems to think that something must be done about it.

Simply sitting around and hoping, won't make it go away. And Saddam has only shown some compliance since the military showed up and started camping on his doorstep.

The only thing he understands is force.
Or the unveiled THREAT of force...which is what is being used right now.

Perhaps if we all go home he'll settle down and play nice, eh?


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

So what would you do to neutralise the threat that Saddam obviously poses to all of us?

Where and when did Saddam ever threaten us? This is a US issue, always has been always will be. End of story. Sort of like the stance they took with Europe in 39. I am so tired of the continued misrepresentation of the facts here.  Saddam was someone the US and the CIA held in high regard in the 80's. Saddam walked into Kuwait and, as I have said before, THREATENED THE US ECONOMY! He never once threatened the security of the United States or North America for that matter and it's freedoms. Today they want Saddam, what happened to the real threat to US soil. If we care to remember 911? Usama actually attacks the US and today we here little to nothing of him from all major news sources. And don't bother with that "well Iraq harbours terrorists" crap because that's exactly what it is.  So does Canada, we just don't know it I am sure. As a matter of fact, so does the US. Hell they teach them how to fly! Not to mention they "harboured" Usama's closest family members whom were all removed from the US in and around the 12th of September 01. Odd, don't you think? ( the question is rhetorical, don't bother.) 

So, getting back to the original thread of thought here. Those of you who will protest, march or just plain old "hope for good will on the planet" I for one thank you. We need you and you do play a very important role on the world stage. Canadians are the world, we are represented from all corners. Canada is about the freedom we are welcome to when it comes to a voice. I for one take my hat off to those who do protest now. As I learned in Calgary at the G8, most all of us were photographed. We were chased and controled and for the first time in my life, as a Canadian in Canada, I felt threated for no apparent reason. At an assembly!! That last time I checked was part of my freedoms. Freedom of assembly, freedom of association, etc etc. So no, your protest wont likely help or change things but it does put us on the same page as the rest of the free world, AMerica aside. Most of the European nations are against action as are their people. Protests are happening all over the globe. Its a wonderful thing we've come to when you really care to think about it. We as a people are picking our sides and picking when and where we allow knowledge to form our thoughts. Awarness is really the only way to go for all of us. And some of you may think peace is for hippies and flakes. Your wrong, even major leaders are playing the peace card. And hopefully for the right reasons.
Peace.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt, that sounds to me like an aggressive stance.
Are you sure you don't advocate war? I can't see how this situation can be so black and white to you. Surely you must have learned some history in your lifetime. 
Saddam was helped by the Americans before. (Oops) The British also helped create the mess in the middle east. 
As for Isreal, read the news. You can see that violence against violence does not work. The situation has escalated with every suicide bombing/village leveling. 
Just because we don't have the answer today, does not mean we should not stop looking for it. The day we find a solution to terrorism/war (for example ) is the day we can start living peacefully on this ball of mud.
Sorry, but opinions like yours scare the hell out of me. Your solution only leads to more violence.
Robert


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Well said timmer.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
*Where and when did Saddam ever threaten us?*

"Us" as in Canada? I don't think he's ever threatened Canada directly. However, if the US feels Iraq is a threat, shouldn't we as allies also regard it as a threat?

*Saddam was someone the US and the CIA held in high regard in the 80's.*

I wouldn't say that; Iraq's brand of Islam was far less of a threat than Iran's brand, and so the US sided with the lesser of two evils. 

*And don't bother with that "well Iraq harbours terrorists" crap because that's exactly what it is.*

He may not harbour terrorist, but he certainly supports them (e.g., $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers).

*Not to mention they "harboured" Usama's closest family members whom were all removed from the US in and around the 12th of September 01. Odd, don't you think?*

Not really. If bin Laden's relatives had remained in the US for very long, I'd be willing to bet they would've been lynched. Moving them out of the country wasn't an unreasonable thing to do (especially since I've heard nothing to suggest any of them were terrorists themselves).

*Your wrong, even major leaders are playing the peace card. And hopefully for the right reasons.*

I doubt it. There's open speculation that France and Germany have done a fair bit of trading with Iraq despite the sanctions, and they're afraid if the US invades they'll find out about it and won't be pleased.

At least Russia's being honest and saying that they dislike the idea of war in Iraq due to the oil contracts they have with Iraq (which might get dissolved if the government changes in Iraq).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well said JFP.

I would just like to add this...

If my atitude "scares the heck out of you" and you see no need for more violence, then I just have to ask...

How do you propose to stop Saddam from continuing to fund and arm terrorists in Israel? (or anywhere else, for that matter) 

And...are you _absoloutely certain_ that none of the unnacounted-for chemical weapons, that were supposedly destroyed by Iraq, are ever going to find their way into one of our cities?

How about biological weapons? These can be manufactured in Iraq with existing facilities. Are you _totally_ satisfied that none of that material will ever be used in North America? (Remember...that sort of stuff doesn't respect borders). 

And are you absoloutely positive that Saddam will resist the urge to buy nuclear material and long-range missiles(and who knows what else) from North Korea?

If you can say YES to all of the above then you are much more certain of his future intentions than I am.

If there is even the slightest doubt in your mind...and you STILL insist that we not take any action against him...then it's one heckuva gamble.

Not one I'd care to bet on, that's for sure.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

For you Macnutt, since you missed Cubamark's remarks earlier:

Cubamark wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> *As for the question of what we peaceniks would do in place of the planned war; Containment. Beef up the restrictions upon which Iraq can participate in the regional global economy. All sales purchases authorized by an international body. Enhanced border security around Iraq by its neighbours with multinational forces. Lock the country down. Allow full trade of goods and services which are needed for the people to survive, but restrict completely any materials which could be used for weapons.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The U.N., including the U.S., hasn't done squat in the last 10 years to take Saddam's toys away from him. Suddenly, Bush gets religious on Saddam and it's nothing short of war.

Take a pill and let's see how far the U.N. can get when it really works at a problem before everyone starts killing each other.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Brainstrained wrote:
*The U.N., including the U.S., hasn't done squat in the last 10 years to take Saddam's toys away from him.*

What about the inspections that started as one of the conditions of the cease fire? I'd call that something.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I agree that other country's should stop trading parts with Iraq that can form weapons; however, the problem remains that many of these parts have proper medical and practical uses. That's the catch (22).

Also further sanctions or trading restrictions against Iraq would only cause the suffering of more of their people. Saddam would just allow his people to become even more impoverished; he does after all have the financial means to help his people but _he doesn't!_. This would likely demonize Europe and America even more in the Iraqi people's eyes. I'm not for war either, but Saddam is a humanitarian nightmare (as I've said before) and I only hope his removal will be quick and efficient.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt, while we're at it lets declare war on the US and "stop them from funding terrorists" eh?
Proof is needed here not your western shoot em up tactics. 
In future, please read up on terrorist activities and what hand your golden idol, the USA had in it. Their number one industry is arms sales. Who do you think they sell to. Oh right, only the good guys, right.
Robert


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Robert, 

I believe that the old phrase was "American Cowboy Diplomacy."

Damn. I tried so hard to use a paragraph!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum:
*I believe that the old phrase was "American Cowboy Diplomacy."*

"...if Bush has been acting like a cowboy, then it?s the curious sort of cowboy who spends a year rounding up a posse and sending deputies into the bad-guy?s hideout to look for stagecoach loot before he acts on a warrant issued 11 years ago." -- James Lileks

*Damn. I tried so hard to use a paragraph!*

Take comfort in the fact that you're still an obnoxious twit.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'll be out for the Halifax march tomorrow (Sat, 15th Feb) despite MacNutt's recommendation.

Why? I don't believe that by demonstrating my opposition to Bush's war plans I am playing into the hands of Saddam, Osama, the boogeyman, etc. 

I do believe that by making my opposition public, I am encouraging others, who may feel as I do, to also speak out publicly. I do not abide by the notion that we must stand united against the enemy - not when the "united" front is dominated by wealthy political figures of questionable motives with dirty hands from past dealings with the same "evildoers" who yesterday were our "best buddies". By going public, I let other Canadians know that they are not alone in thinking that this impending war is a bad move. 

A child who grows up in an abusive household does not speak about the horrors s/he experiences, because it will "hurt the family." We've managed to begin educating our children to speak out against any improper behaviour. The international stage is little different....

And if I must sit through yet another rehashing by the hawks of "if we don't act now, it will be like Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler" I shall surely toss my cookies. This is 2003, not 1933 or 1943. We no longer need to float blimps to see the troops advancing, nor send carrier pigeons aloft to get the message to the front lines. Those who do not learn the lessons of history are, yes, doomed to repeat them - but taking the analogy too far is foolish and dishonest. We do not live in a world where the deployment of massive contingents of troops and the use of weaponry can be conducted unknowingly. 

M.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
*This is 2003, not 1933 or 1943. We no longer need to float blimps to see the troops advancing, nor send carrier pigeons aloft to get the message to the front lines. ... We do not live in a world where the deployment of massive contingents of troops and the use of weaponry can be conducted unknowingly.*

I don't think anyone (except Iraq's neighbours) have considered Iraq a military threat in the conventional sense. I think the primary concern of the US government is that Iraq will produce weapons of mass destruction (be they chemical, nuclear, or biological) which they will then sell to terrorists, who will find a way to bring these weapons into the US.

I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to smuggle something into the US in a container (i.e., it's hard to spot like troops massing up at a border), and I think this is the reason the US is worried.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

jfpoole, yes, your point is taken - my posting was in response to the frequent (within and without this forum) analogies to WWI and WWII. We need reasoned analysis that does not rely upon such scare tactics as comparing Hussein to a reincarnated Hitler, is my point.

M.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

jfpoole wrote
Take comfort in the fact that you're still an obnoxious twit.

Thanks for returning this thread to obnoxious levels. Did we not cover this a few pages back?  

Cubamark,
nice to hear your thoughts. I hope the weather is great out your way tomorrow.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
*Thanks for returning this thread to obnoxious levels.*

No, this is spillover from another thread. Feel free to ignore it.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

My apologies for the miscue.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

CubaMark,

Cheers, mate! Glad to hear you'll be marching for your beliefs. I'll be thinking about you and your fellow attendees.









______

I have no problem with those who would consider my attendance in the Toronto march an improper action, or that my thoughts on the impending "war" are incorrect. All I ask is that we, who would protest the likely actions of the U.S., are afforded the respect to make our feelings public in joining together for our cause.

I love my American brethren and wish that no harm come to them. I fear for their well being under the rule of the current administration. No one in our two great nations should ever be left living in fear, like the fear which is quite obviously gripping the people of the U.S. at this time. Why, even their own public opinion is split over the current issues with Iraq. More time is needed to reconsider the consequences of any actions taken OR missed. That's all I'm asking for.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wow...this threads got _legs_! Just keeps on goin and goin...

JFP is exactly right, the weapons that we are worried about would not be used by a massed military to attack a neighboring country...we'd likely see that coming...but they will almost certainly be sold or given to individual terrorist groups. Probably for deployment in North America or Europe.

Most likely in a crowded spot...like a subway system or a big shopping mall. Or several crowded places at once.

Want to "contain Saddam" like Mark proposed? (BTW-I not only read that post, I replied to it several times. Check and see)

Containment would not be any more effective than the blockade on Cuba.

It wouldn't work. (another historic lesson)

So what do we do? How do we get him to stop funding terrorism in Israel? How do we neutralise him as a potential threat to ALL of us? How do we get him to divert some of the millions he spends on lavish palaces to feed the starving children of Iraq?

Do we ask him nicely?

Or will he respond only when faced with an unstoppable force? Like the one he faces right now. The one that you are marching in protest of.

Think about all of that, while you're marching for Saddam tomorrow.

Because, if you're sucessful....then all of this will just keep on happening.

BTW- Mark...I agree with you. Those who forget the lessons of history ARE doomed to keep repeating them.

Too bad we keep forgetting.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Did someone mention Party? We will need it before this thread winds down.

Congratulations to all of you for expressing your views. No complacent Canadians here.

Robert, you made a good point of the fact that the U.S.was selling arms to just about anyone, no questions asked. A friend of mine was in the business.

Unfortunately, bombing the heck out of Iraq is not going to stop terrorism in the world.This is the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.I can't shake my gut feeling that this is not so much about removing Saddam's regime (yes I would like to see him gone)as it is Bush proving he is big man on the campus. 

I am still concerned about the consequences of a war in this area of the world and fear we may win the war, but lose the battle-------


que sera, sera


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

"Think about all of that, while you're marching for Saddam tomorrow."

macnutt,

You don't get it. Shame, really.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, while I respect your right to express your view, you do not win any converts when you write things such as "Think about all of that, while you're marching for Saddam tomorrow." I proudly marched against the war in Vietnam before it became a mass movement. I did so because I thought that the war was immoral, and I wanted to see our troops brought home and out of harms way. Those who march tomorrow are marching against a war which will probably kill many innocent civilians. They are NOT marching in support of Saddam.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Speak softly, but carry a big stick." Still, give peace a chance.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt, look compadre, you've gotta stop bringing in the Cuba blockade bit - as I've pointed out, you're comparing apricots and passionfruit. The U.S. stands virtually alone on the Cuba blockade, whereas Iraq has decidedly fewer friends at the U.N.

The equation remains very simple, albeit not one solved in the short-term. Want to take the legs out from under the terrorists? Make the conditions of life for their followers incompatible with those adherents' reasons for supporting terror. If we undertook to do serious equality-building around the world, rather than screwing third world nations into the ground with outrageous debt payment demands, IMF loan conditionalities (see Bolivia right now http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2003/02/15/1045274341.htm ) and so-called "free" trade agreements (such as the FTAA, which, as mexican farmers discovered this month, applies only to the importing of American products, not the exporting of mexican products TO America, thereby creating serious balance-of-trade issues and decimating local livelihoods due to the massive U.S. subsidies given to American agribusiness http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/03-02-13/inbrief.htm .

The "Do We Need A Leader" thread should be reactivated, with an eye toward global development. We need global leadership that curtails the billion-dollar international arms industry; ends currency speculation that bankrupts governments; forbids trade agreements that displace local capacity in the face of competition with global corporations; etc.

Stopping War is as easy as pie. Work toward seriously improving the lot in life of the 95% of the world who don't live in the North/West. People who have something to lose don't carry out suicide bombings or plot mass terror attacks. 

Bush et al still don't get it. They still believe that the terrorists 'hate what we stand for - hate our democracy'. that's so much flag-waving bullcrap. The western world has laid down the conditions for terror to rise up, by keeping the pie to itself and pretending to help the rest of the world "develop".

[...] enough. It's past midnight on the east coast.... and somehow I doubt that much of this will sink in with those who need to reflect upon it the most...

M.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

timmer,
that "obnoxious twit" comment was meant for me.


jfpoole,
wow, name calling now.

"obnoxious twit"? you must really be hitting the bottom of the barrel.

nothing left on that David Harper website for your to quote?

cubamark,
a while ago in a post far, far away, i mentioned something about the "haves" needing to share with the "have nots" and received a round of boos.

i see that sentiment is still strong.

at least Chretien is trying to get the Kyoto accord to be seriously considered here in Canada, but Ralphie "Boy" Klein is so busy sucking on the teat of the oil companies, he can't see reality.

alas, "the shrub" is long past even thinking about the environment. SUVs for everyone ! miles per gallon? who cares? damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead ! more military ! more pollution! more petro dollars ! more, more, more!!!! - that might be America's epitaph

I've lived long enough to see one empire fall. I just might live to see another one fall as well.

One day, I hope, we can learn to live together and share our abundance. So that all men can be free and have a social conscience.

Gene Rodenberry, we miss ya'.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

At the risk of derailing this thread, and reeling off into a discussion of Global Trade...I just have to say this.

The parts of the world that have a rapidly rising standard of living are exactly the ones who have learned how to conduct open trade with North America and Europe. India and China were far worse off ten years ago than they are now. Mexico also has made a quantum leap from where it was when I lived there in the early eighties. Trade with other countries is what has given Chile a standard of living that will soon exceed that of England...while the rest of the countries in South America are STILL in the third world.

Look at Singapore back in the sixties...Thailand...South Korea in the fifties. The list goes on....

The Arab world "hasn't gotten it". They haven't figured out how to turn their oil wealth into a viable economic engine and use it to power themselves out of the middle ages. Mostly because they don't have a chance to choose their own direction. It's chosen for them, by dictators and despots who decide where the money will be spent and which of their family members will be in charge of shoe factory number three.

They need what has already worked to improve the lives of millions of people in every single country that has embraced the concept.

Free enterprise...freely elected government and free trade with other Nations.

It works like nothing else does.

And it won't happen in Iraq as long as Saddam stays in power. Iraq could, quite concieveably be the cornerstone of a whole new beginning for the entire Middle East. But not as long as the despot is still running the show. As long as he stays, people will keep on dying, clandestine factories will still churn out horrors, Saddam will continue to build lavish palaces (almost SIXTY of them so far) and Iraqi children will continue to starve.

March on! You'll be helping him to stay in power.

Hope that doesn't keep you awake at night.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Macnutt and his ilk have a dim bulb lit where even a cursory reading of history is concerned. Read the history of the Bush dy"nasty" and follow the money if you can get a brighter bulb screwed in. This crowd and it's brand of republicanism is cynical beyond belief in it's dog wagging and has no love of even the vaguest concept of the dignity of human or other life. This may be true of Saddam who is probably a perfect ethical match with Bush and neither care for the several hundred thousand or so dead, mutilated and/or poisoned . Imagine the kill ratio of guilty to innocent. Talk of cynical!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That would be one solution...and, faint hope though it is, we may actually have to wait for the butcher of Baghdad to stroke out before we see any real change in Iraq.

If the peace marchers get their way, and the US pulls back, that is.

Me? I'm hoping that they won't...and all of this will be a moot point two months from now.

Then the killing and torture will _really_ stop. It sure won't if he stays in power.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*alas, "the shrub" is long past even thinking about the environment.*

What do you call the hydrogen fuel initiative mentioned in the State of the Union speech a few weeks ago?

*One day, I hope, we can learn to live together and share our abundance.*

I've asked before, and I'll ask again; how do you plan on implementing this sharing? We've already seem that Communism (and to a lesser degree Socialism) just doesn't work, so that's not really an option....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree JFP. But some people out there seem to be unable to learn the lessons that history has taught us. They keep on parroting the same old tired drivel no matter how often it is shown to be a failure. No matter how many countries abandon this system and move towards something that actually WORKS (for a change) 

They still think that they have a "better" way...and that the whole world will wake up and adopt that better way someday very soon.

And they think that Saddam can be dealt with by "containing" him...and by passing a bunch of new resolutions. They seem to think that this will stop the children from starving, stop the terrorism in Israel, and prevent him from secretly developing new horrors that we will ALL have to deal with someday soon.

You know something?

They just don't get it.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Mississauga wrote:
*I have no problem with those who would consider my attendance in the Toronto march an improper action, or that my thoughts on the impending "war" are incorrect. All I ask is that we, who would protest the likely actions of the U.S., are afforded the respect to make our feelings public in joining together for our cause.*

As far as I'm concerned, go nuts protesting against the war. Just make sure to dress warmly  I have two concerns for the march happening tomorrow (today?).

First, who's organizing these marches, and what are their motives? One of the groups behind the 18 January marches across the US is the Workers World Party, a group that thinks dictators are just dandy. The group that's organizing the march in Toronto doesn't seem to have existed before January of this year. 

Second, will this just be another excuse for some to get together and smash things? I've heard of a lot of this at anti-globalization marches and some at anti-war marches, and if anything it's reason enough to stay away from these sorts of gatherings (ignoring the fact that I don't agree with the anti-war sentiment). Plus, when that sort of thing happens, it's not good PR for any of the groups involved.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Read: "have a dim..." not "you are"....get it?
Read: "perfect ethical match" not "more dangerous".
Where do you read a slogan?

It seems we have a problem with reading.

I have 14 years of worldwide professional touring. Ever been harassed and strip searched at the U$ border? The explanation of the guards was "because we can"....familiar?

We in Trawna are within farting range of the U$..hardly sheltered.

You may be missing a sense of balance...my God not even Osama is marching for Saddam.

The heat probably is appropriate but to kill thousands of civilians certainly not.

I would think that the concern might be for the dirt poor effing arab peasants and their families than the lack of balanced information on your little island.

end of exchange.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Anyone who is really serious about something should always look very hard at who is organising them to take action.

If you don't...then you could end up being seriously embarrassed later...and that would undermine the whole cause, would it not?

Ask questions. Ask LOTS of questions.

And try not to break too many windows or overturn too many cars. Fires are not good either.

It makes you guys look sooooo flaky to the 99% of the population who AREN'T "marching for peace".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macello...I have no idea what 14 years of 'professional touring' means...but I can guess that you've never had a residence in a foriegn country. Or nine.

So...I ask you again. What is it that I have missed in all of this? What would you do to deal with Saddam? Or would you prefer we did nothing? Is that the answer? Just leave him be, and all will be OK?

Enlighten me. Please.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW..."killing thousands of innocent civilians" is just what was predicted before the first Gulf War. Same with Afghanistan. 

Didn't happen. Are you guys still reading the same old pamphlet? Maybe it's time to get a new one.

That one doesn't seem to be too accurate.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,895397,00.html

There's a letter in the Guardian from an Iraqi doctor, who's protesting the anti-war protests.

<blockquote>I want to say to all these people who are against the possible war, that if you think by doing so you are serving the interests of Iraqi people or saving them, you are not. You are effectively saving Saddam. You are depriving the Iraqi people of probably their last real chance get rid of him and to get out of this dark era in their history.</blockquote>


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Didn't happen because they stopped short of Bhagdad.

South Africa WAS a paradise for a few - the US is not far off that kind of police state.

Saddam is a problem the United Nations is dealing with and the UN is an organization of Sovereign nations who each have a say and right now the consensus is against immediate attack. IF you actually believe in democracy then respect the fact that the US position is not being supported by the other members.

The US "my way or the highway" attitude and the perception of bullying, cowboy tactics is what made Europeans vote Bush as the most dangerous man in the world.
Given the US resources they are doing a dismal job distributing wealth which is one reason the US consistently ranks low in the "best countries to live in " rankings.

Here's a good number for you to chew on about "police state" and ingrained discrimination.
California spends $7000 per child on education
They spend $27,000 per inmate and the proportion of "minorities" represented in the prison system is close to 10 times their representation in the general population.
Things like that abysmal "instant deportation" of a Canadian citizen, mainly because she was a visible minority are not indicative of a "free and open" society living in harmony. It smacks entirely of a police state living in fear of both the outside world due to it's own meddling and economic and cultural imperialism and fear and disciminationagainst a large portion of it's own citizenry.

I find it interesting that you site Singapore in your "success" stories. Indeed it does sound a lot like the US in this ....

"Singapore: Government Continues to Use Judicial System to Stifle Political Opposition 

Jailed Opposition Leader is Freed After 3rd Arrest on Anti-Free
Speech Charges

NEW YORK – Dr. Chee Soon Juan, a leading opposition politician in Singapore, was released from a Singapore jail Saturday, Nov. 9. Dr. Chee had been held for five weeks on charges stemming from a peaceful May 1 rally he organized in front of the presidential palace. 

The rally called for democratic reforms and the implementation of fair labor practices for Singapore workers.

Dr. Chee’s arrest fits into a larger pattern of political suppression in Singapore. In the last three years, Dr. Chee has been in and out of jail three times as the authorities have tried to stifle his ability to galvanize support for his views. Others who have spoken out against the government, have also faced defamation law suits, fines and jail.

“The law has been twisted in Singapore to serve those in power and put a muzzle on those who speak out,” said Neil Hicks, a spokesperson for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. 

“In cracking down on their critics, the government often cites security concerns, but the goal of these repressive policies is not a safer Singapore,” added Hicks. “The goal is to severely restrict the amount of political space that Singaporeans can operate in.”

Despite the crackdowns some democracy activists and opposition politicians have vowed to continue to speak out. “You got to let them [the authorities] know you’re willing to pay the price and bear whatever it takes to win freedom for your country,” Chee said as he left prison on Saturday. 

A formidable array of legislation restricts the ability of Singaporeans to enjoy fundamental human rights and deters independent voices from advocating for democratic reforms and fair labor conditions. For democracy to move forward in Singapore these laws need to be repealed and the authorities must stop harassing those who seek to promote human rights and their political beliefs peacefully"

and this http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=1356 
Where your admirable Singapore is outright called a "modern police state".

The real impact of terrorism is bringing out the repressive nature of the US political and autocratic structure. From http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_48.shtml 
Feb 9th

"President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have done a poor job of defending freedom,'' said Lynch, who addressed the issue in a policy analysis for the institute. "The Bush administration has supported measures that are antithetical to freedom, such as secret subpoenas, secretive arrests, secretive trials and secretive deportations. A vigorous investigation into the worst attack on American civilians was necessary, but the administration, with the acquiescence of Congress, has disregarded vital constitutional principles.''
Walks like a Police state, talks like a police state..........

No thanks......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's a good summary of the ability of the US to limit civilian casualties and why the world has little respect for the current US regime. 

"1991 US undeclared war on Iraq killing 200,000 people, including U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. 
Today, US-imposed sanctions on Iraq have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children. 
1989 U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manual Noriega. 
1980s U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or "soft targets". 
1980s U.S. attacked and bombed with impunity the nation of Libya, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. 
1952-1979 Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from. 
1979 Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah, and who was the U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll, while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s. 
1954-1975 U.S. assault on Indochina, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually "hands on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in "The Pentagon Papers," released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation. In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war. 
1973 U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens. 
1973 U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S. government used to call them before the term "collateral damage" was invented--"soft targets"). 
1970- present U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that continues to this day and has resulted in the deaths and mutilations of over 1,000,000. 
1965 U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic and helped to murder 3,000 people. 
1965 U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. 
1954 US undeclared war on Guatemala resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades. U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia have resulted in deaths running into the hundreds of thousands.

U.S. actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians. (Over 90%). Casualties from the specific violence of U.S. terror and military action since World War II are 8,000,000 people. This figure translates to the United States committing the casualties of one World Trade Center (killing approximately 7,000 people) 20 times per year, every year over the last 45 years.

These figures cannot begin to capture the full scope and range of the multiple forms of violence, including economic, sexual, spiritual, intellectual, physical and many others, nor can they exhaust the experiences of the multiple peoples who have endured such violence at the hands of the United States government."

"MY GOVERNMENT IS THE WORLD'S LEADING PURVEYOR OF VIOLENCE."
- MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., 1967
who of course was assassinated.

Still want the Shrub to lead the charge? 
Wonder why the respect is lacking?
Wonder why THEY are the main target of radical groups??
 
I don't condone terrorism, I don't condone US foriegn policy or their internal abuses of human rights. NEITHER are examples for the world to emulate.  

You keep referring to the US as the "benefactor" after World War II - the concept of Allies was important then - it is even more important now. The US is simply a very scary regime right now. MacNutt you say you hate dictators - the US is far more a police state than ever before.

You know the day they announced the "Homeland Security" it immediately had a Nazi echo to it. I wasn't the only one that thought so.
MacNutt, for once get off your US banner waving and really think about what the current US state is about and look at the historic parallels that many many people including myself fear so greatly.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/11/1545321.php 
http://www.chaosacrossamerica.com/Homeland.htm 
http://groups.msn.com/OfficeofHomelandSecurity 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816418/posts 

and these two are hilarious if it wasn't so scary http://www.infoshop.org/pipermail/infoshop-news/2001-October/000180.html 
http://www-earth.tripod.com/eagle.htm 

and more yet http://www.impactpress.com/articles/decjan03/notes12103.html 

There's more, way more from many many sources across the political spectrum. You want to be educated MacNutt then just hit Google with
"homeland security" nazi

We in Canada should be fighting tooth and nail to prevent our own cherished and working freedoms and multicultural society from being swept into the cesspool of bigotry and "jack boot" politics that is occuring south of the border and to protect our citizens from abuse.

Sure MacNutt - I admire the US constitution and the goals set out there in. But that's not what the current regime is about and the current political regime is what the world fears and I detest.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

"I want to say to all these people who are against the possible war, that if you think by doing so you are serving the interests of Iraqi people or saving them, you are not. You are effectively saving Saddam. You are depriving the Iraqi people of probably their last real chance get rid of him and to get out of this dark era in their history." 


I was told recently basically the same thing by my Iraqi co-worker. 
Up until about a week ago I was so anti-war. I still am but for other reasons. It seems most of the world is against US interevention in Iraq except those directly involved. Yes, Abu is scared for his family in the event of war but he fears Saddam more. He is a very intelligent person and agrees the US has interests in the oil but as it stands now, the ordinary folk get no benefit from this resource wealth.
Those who think Saddam can be dealt with by diplomacy or sanctions have their heads firmly stuck in the sand and have no idea just what a despot dictator we are dealing with here.

As much as I feel for the plight of my co-worker, I feel this war will only cause greater problems. I think the US is falling in Osama's hands. War is what Bin Laden WANTS. This will give him the chance to go forth and proclaim the evils of the Western world and rally even more to his side. This will give him the REAL reason to call an all out Jihad.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*1991 US undeclared war on Iraq killing 200,000 people, including U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers.*

Undeclared war? What do you mean by that? I would've thought it was a typo, but you've used it a couple of times in your post.

*Today, US-imposed sanctions on Iraq have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children.*

US-imposed sanctions? Shurely you mean UN-imposed sanctions! Plus, a lot of the misery in Iraq "caused" by the sanctions could be corrected quite easily by the Iraqi government; simply stop spending money on ornate presidential palaces and mosques and spend the money on food instead.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Adagio right on. Bin Laden has already achieved part of his goals because of what the US is turning into.

JP - note the quotation marks. Don't miss the forest for the trees by picking out a bit here or a bit there. There is heavy rhetoric on both sides. That was simply a summary of US meddling by someone who really has issues with the US.
I did not state I was against military action to remove Saddam. What I am concerned about is the posture the US is taking in this decision and the nature of the society that rapidly developing in the US.
If you look at how the US has resisted multinational bodies like the World Court, and undermined the UN many times ( the UN is not perfect - nothing is perfect ) that's where this brinkmanship has the world concerned.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Macdoc, no wonder you have been missing in action on ehMac, you have been busy. For the last three hours I have been reading your post, even though that colored printing is difficult, I struggled through. Still haven't finished, but will continue later.

Excellent presentation and hopefully all will take the time to review at least some of the articles.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You know...I sit here and take it. I get called all sorts of things...and I am told I am a "dim bulb"...that I "just don't get it".

And I listen to a bunch of tired old slogans from people who seem to all have read the same pamphlet about how evil Bush is, and how he is more dangerous than Saddam...

SIGH....


Okay. Educate me. Tell me what it is that I am missing. What basic truths have I failed to learn in my years of living in foreign lands and dealing with all sorts of different governments. What is the real deal...what is it that you, who have been safely tucked away in Central Canada for all of your lives, have found out that I do not yet grasp? it must be SOMETHING...since there seem to be so many of you spouting the same sort of slogans.

Tell me! Please!

While you're at it...please explain how we will get Saddam to obey any of the dozen UN resolutions that have already been passed regarding his nasty playtoys. 

If we pull back and don't threaten him with force...then how do you propose to make him follow the rules that the UN sets out for him?

He sure wasn't complying before the US stepped up the heat.

Anyone?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macspectrum, I don't want to get off topic but Kyoto is a whole other thread (that I think was done but I didn't read much of). I support environmental protection myself, but Kyoto is somewhat dubious overall.

For others: those who are name calling have shown that their stance lacks content and merit. Be friendly and informative - not accusative. Or you might as well join the U.S. military (or maybe better yet the French troops). 

At this point, would it be asking too much for Saddam and his regime all to have fatal heart attacks?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt
Please don't try to assassinate the character or experience of other posters. It is revealing as the worst possible netiquette. Anyway...and please don't make these posts so painfully personal....

You seem to be missing the Wagging Dog. This beautifully manufactured and scripted spectacle around one and seemingly only one evil dictator hiding in his palace, (Dr. No I presume?) whose criminal acts ( far exceeded by recent afghani civilian bombing casualties) for the most part took place while he was considered by the U$ a supportable ally against the Muslim hordes from Iran; his gaseous weaponry supplied by his (Republican) friends in the good 'ole U$A.
Remember Dubya's daddy?
The right wing Republican dream of cheap sweet crude and resulting justifiable mass murder (crusade) against Arab civilians is underway and initially it's going to be a pushover.
Imagine the power and the glory of the U$ military apparatus on every American screen rolling over the Iraqi populace with it's shiny high tech gear and distant shots (no mangled bodies please!) with "ordinance delivery" of gizmo's like "daisy cutters" and 2,000 lb. "packages" encased in "depleted" uranium, all in pursuit of the next most evil man who will have to do since the one who brought you 9/11 is still at large and no doubt pissing his pants with laughter over the american civilian loss of constitutional freedom and the demise of his fellow arab nemesis Dr. No.

By the way, the message (who makes the rules) from this american administration is aimed solely at the United Nations since the hoplessly weak iraqi military it deems an irrelevant pushover. Hardly a worthy opponent.

It will be the Mother****er of all Reality TV !

A mass media orgasm for advertisers.....like weeks of superbowl....Geddit ?!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*Don't miss the forest for the trees by picking out a bit here or a bit there.*

That seems to be the "style" of discussion here on ehMac. When in Rome and all...

You cite the US war against Iraq as an "undeclared" war (which, I presume, means you don't think it was valid or just), yet the US was part of a UN coalition to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. It was a war that had the backing of the UN. I'd hardly call it a case of the US acting unilaterally.

I also noticed that in your list you didn't mention Afghanistan (the most current campaign the US has been involved in, and the only one that was conducted while the current administration was in office). The numbers I've seen suggest that around 3000 civilians died during that conflict. That's not bad at all, and I think that should war break out in Iraq, similar care will be taken to keep the civilian death toll down, too.

*If you look at how the US has resisted multinational bodies like the World Court....*

I have looked at how the US has resisted things like the World Court, and there's usually a good reason behind it (such as signing this treaty would violate the rights of American citizens protected in the Constitution).

Should the US just rip up its constitution?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

jfpoole,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Afghanistan (the most current campaign the US has been involved in, and the only one that was conducted while the current administration was in office). The numbers I've seen suggest that around 3000 civilians died during that conflict. That's not bad at all, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Afghani families of those civilians might not agree with you. The figure, by the way, is between 3800 and 5000 direct casualties plus untold thousands who died out of sight of the cameras from exposure in refugee displacements during the Afghani winter, plus infrastructural damage. Would the families of 3000 Americans give up their lives to allow Bush to "get" Bin Laden and end the terrorist threat? Oh, wait, they didn't get Bin Laden, and the terrorist threat has just been shifted to Iraq. I guess they thought the American public wouldn't notice so much, seeing as how they are all preoccupied with Michael Jackson's bedroom romps, Joe Millionaire's pick-of-the-week, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I have looked at how the US has resisted things like the World Court, and there's usually a good reason behind it (such as signing this treaty would violate the rights of American citizens protected in the Constitution).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 Uh, excuse me? How does mining the harbours of Nicaragua, for which the U.S. was found in violation of international law by the World Court at the Hague, violate the rights of American citizens? Care to put out there a couple of examples whereby World Court rulings against the U.S. would have this theoretical impact upon its virginly-pure constitution?

Also, for those interested, my photos from today's peace march in Halifax are online: http://homepage.mac.com/mrushton 

Note that 1.5 million "friends of Saddam" (as MacNutt would have us believe) took to the streets of London, UK, some 750 thousand in Auckland, AUS., and hundreds of thousands of others around the world, including over 80 U.S. cities.

And since MacNutt's name just happened to come up here... are France, Germany, Belgium and China all buddies of Saddam? No? Gee.. then there must be other reasons why those states also oppose going to war in Iraq. Hmm... what could those reasons possibly be.... ?

M.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macdoc and cubamark,

How dare you confuse the issue with facts !!  

Now before anyone gets their panties in a knot, it was just a little joke.

Heaven forbid jfpoole call me an "obnoxious twit" again. Oh, the agony.

cubamark,
i hope you had your "I'm not with CSIS/FBI/CIA" button on while taking those pix.

With all those people demonstrating across the world, speaking out, and the politicians are deaf.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

For all my fellow peaceniks out, I got this e-mail this morning, I'd like to share with you.

I have no idea whether the story is true (the dispute over the two islands is true), but I appreciate the sentiment very much and intend to do it myself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> * Making a Difference – A Non-Violent Strategy

Place ½ cup uncooked rice in a plastic bag (a snack-sized bag or sandwich bag work fine). Squeeze out excess air and seal the bag. Wrap it in a piece of paper on which you have written: If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Romans 12:20. Please send this rice to the people of Iraq; do not attack them." Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope (either a letter sized or small padded mailing envelope) and address them to:

President George Bush

White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20500

And

Prime Minister Jean Chretien

Parliament Buildings

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

There is a positive history of this kind of activism: In the mid 1950’s, the pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation, learning of famine in the Chinese mainland, launched a "Feed Thine Enemy" campaign. Members and friends mailed thousands of little bags of rice to the White House with a tag quoting the Bible, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him." As far as anyone knew for more than ten years, the campaign was an abject failure. The President did not acknowledge receipt of the bags publicly; certainly no rice was ever sent to China.

What nonviolent activists only learned a decade later was that the campaign placed a significant, perhaps even determining role in preventing nuclear war. Twice while the campaign was on, President Eisenhower met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to consider US options in the conflict with China over two islands, Quemoy and Matsu. The generals twice recommended the use of nuclear weapons. President Eisenhower each time turned to his aide and asked how many little bags of rice had come in. When told they numbered in the tens of thousands, Eisenhower told the generals that as long as so many Americans were expressing active interest in having the US feed the Chinese, he certainly wasn’t going to consider using nuclear weapons against them.* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JP again you miss the quotation marks. The writer of that summary was axe grinding by saying it was an undeclared war. I didn't say I agree with everything she wrote it's a SUMMARY! The point of which being that the US ( amongst others) has a very clear historical tendency to violence and meddling often with horrendous results both immeidately and many years down the road - I mean the bulk of Iraq arms came from western nations....initially with the US approval.
Afghanistan is another violent episode in the list and is where Canadian soldiers lost their lives due to American machismo - the nick of the pilot was Psycho  
American citizens are NOT in danger of losing their rights to the World Court they ARE CURRENTLY losing their rights big time to "Homeland Security" laws.
Doesn't anyone else here see the incredible parallels with the rise of Nazism and fascism???








Doesn't the "it never happens" applause for France in the Security Council tell you the WORLD wants a different course of action than the US is promulgating. IF you are promoting democracy and pluralism, then abide by the results  
Iraq may indeed require miltary action but the UN has indicated that it wants the inspectors given more time. No one is condoning Saddam but there are disagreements currently in the timing and need for military involvement. And the US foriegn policy of "strike first" ( not just on Iraq) has the rest of the world very concerned....as it should be.
Europeans are not scared of Bin Laden or Saddam, they are big time worried about Bush! 

Brainstrained...good post. Why does it take a "political" danger at home to reign in American aggression. Hell BURY the damn White House in rice!!!!!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

If that story is totally true Brainstrained, then I'm impressed. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Lots of rhetoric flying around...and a whole bunch of numbers listing how many were killed in several different countries (some of them seem to be a bit suspect...to say the least)

But no one has bothered to answer my simple questions. The same ones that I have been asking since the first few pages of this monster thread.

So I'll ask again....

Saddam only responds to force. The UN hasn't been able to make him comply with any of their resolutions for the last dozen years. He kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of his country quite some time ago...and only let them back in when the US started parking military hardware in his backyard.

In fact...the ONLY time he has responded to any of the UN mandates was when it was obvious that the US was about to attck if he didn't.

So...my question is this...

If you, who advocate "peace", want the US and it's allies to pull back and not attack...to pack up all the gear and go home, as it were....

Then how the HECK are you planning to make Saddam go along with any UN resolutions? Past, present or future?

And what are your plans to force him to stop spending on luxury palaces and missile factories...and start feeding the thousands of starving children in his country?

Do you have any plans to get him to stop paying for the slaughter of innocents in Israel?

Any thoughts on how this would be done? Especially how it would be done if the threat of deadly force wasn't being used.

Perhaps if each of us sent him a bag of rice? Would that do it?

Please...enlighten me.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Cubamark, I had a look at some of your pics. Good for you. Sorry but it looked pretty cold out there. Here in Vanvouver they it was huge as well. I heard something like 500 cities world wide took part today. 

cheers
timmer


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

"Mommy can I have candy?" -- "No."

"Mommy can I have candy?" -- "No."

"Mommy can I have candy?" -- "No."

"Mommy can I have candy?" -- "No."

"Mommy can I have candy?" -- "No."

Macnutt, repeatedly asking the question won't change the answer you don't like, don't understand, don't want to hear, or whatever.

See Cubamark's response or my quote of Cubamark's response for the answer to your question.

Bush: "Can I attack Iraq?" 

World: "Not yet."

Bush: "Can I attack Iraq?" 

World: "Not yet."

Bush: "Can I attack Iraq?" 

World: "Not yet."

For now that's the answer.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW- macdoc...you're current theme of "the USA as a modern facist state in it's early stages" is rather frightening. 

I see a country that has suffered a terrible attack by terrorists and is responding by trying to counter that threat. Australia suffered a similar attack in Bali...and they seem to be firmly in the US camp at this time.

Several other potential terrorist attacks on large groups of innocent civilians have been thwarted by investigators in Europe. 

No teling what sort of carnage they may have inflicted, had they not been stopped.

There has to be some sort of sacrafice of basic freedoms if this threat is to be dealt with...at least that's what MOST of the population seem to think.

But you see this as the rise of a new "Nazi" state.

Hmmmmmmm....

Now, I _know_ how intelligent you are...so I'm not going to say that you are wrong in your assesment of all this. But I don't agree with you at all...and that means that _one_ of us is mis-interpreting the available data.

Tell you what. If George Bush declares "no more elections" due to the country being at war or something...then I'll concede that you are correct, and that the USA is turning into a facist state.

But if there are new Presidential elections two years from now...then I will assume that this particular facist state a-borning is the first one in history that allows free elections. 

That sort of lets the air out of the "new Nazi state" argument doesn't it? 

Especially if a Democrat wins.

Whoops...there goes the "dynasty"

Guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Brainstrained, et al...

I have been back and forth over both your and Cubamarks' posts and I cannot find an answer to my question.

All I see is "we have to wait...we have to wait..."

No mention at all of any way to force Saddam to comply. 

Maybe he'll just consider this a "near-death experience" and turn over a new leaf? Start a new chapter...stop the killing and the building of weapons...start feeding his subjects with the vast amounts he now spends on himself and his weapons?

You who advocate that we do nothing MUST have a plan...

Please share it with the rest of us.

I'm serious.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Brain strained - couldn't have said it better...shorter maybe but not better  

MacNutt there are two issues at the table here - Iraq is a problem AND the US is a problem.
The perception amongst many around the world is that the latter is the BIGGER problem.
You asked about what to do - the UN is proceeding and the US doesn't like the delay.
I asked repeatedly why isn't the incredible parallels with the rise of fascism and the Nazi party that DID lead to a World War not being discussed in relation to the current US attitude. A horrible, odious and arrogant attitude to both world opinion and it's own citzens rights..let alone the rights of citizens of other sovereign nations for "peaceable passage".
Jack boots in the distance..........to the south I think. Did anyone take time to read those links??


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the shrub realizes the mistakes made by daddy.

daddy didn't finish off saddam and therefore lost to a democract.

you really think the shrub will not learn? well, better put, that daddy will order him not to repeat his own errors?

the shrub has to attack iraq now that he has committed so many u.s troops - latest count by ABC news over 115,000 - else he be considered a coward by the PTB .

he won't allow for that mistake because he want to get a 2nd term.

the shrub has missed out on Usama, successfully shifted the focus onto Iraq, an easier target to find on the map.

I am afraid, as per earlier posts here, that by attacking Iraq, the U.S. is just being led down the path that Usama wants them to follow.

U.S. attacks Iraq. Iraq attacks Israel. Israel attack Iraq. (interview with Ben Netenyahoo on t.v. 4+ weeks ago; "We will not sit idly by this time.") Arabs get pissed and attack Israel. U.S. has to help Israel. Iran sees a weakened Iraq and attacks Iraq for oilfields.

I believe this is what is called the "slippery slope effect."


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Macnutt, I recall you not answering quesitons in earlier posts. Something macspectrum wanted? lefties and right? Something like that? Anyway its very amusing for you of all people to use the word rhetoric. Good God I am still laughing. 

I am so tired of the idea that A. we can sit around and talk crap about the world all the while being arm chair polititions while I believe some here think they're running for office. I will say for the record, what a wonderful place we have here. Sure am glad I am not sitting in the middle of a potential war zone with a dictator on one side of me and a potential dictator on the other. 
B. When someone like macdoc lays down facts, which others here demand, he gets ripped and nitpicked to the enth degree. why? Because deep inside you know he is right! Give the man a break. Macdoc, keep it coming. Your posts are fantastic!!! And of course the rest of you who support FREEDOM and HUMAN RIGHTS do not ever sway from yourself. 

Its a damn sad day when people, sitting in their glass houses think that death, genocide and all out killing is a good and proper action.  I feel ashamed for you. 

timmer

 

peace


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt - fascism always requires a government mechanism and as I said the issue is with THIS regime NOT the American political system in it's ideal state. It's there to protect the populace from just this sort of megalomania.
That said, many populations before this have "bought in" to fascism including a goodly number in the US Nazi party prior to WWII.
The US has a history of alternately being "isolationist" then "imperialist" and very little history of being "engaged" in the world as equal partners with other sovereign nations.
It's general population is often extremely unaware, indeed ignorant, of the rest of the world and US politicians all too often the same.
Do you not realize that Canadians abroad are viewed very differently than Americans?? 
Why would that be??


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting thoughts Michael...and certainly well within the realm of possibilty.

That's why the US has to move rather fast when...and IF..an attack is made upon Iraq. they have to take out Saddam and shut down all channels of communication between the top generals and the troops.

If they don't...then the scenario you mentioned could very well become reality.

And we all know that Israel has nuclear weapons...and can deliver them effectively.

Scary stuff, indeed.

But how long can this massed military wait around for the UN to try and agree on just how much Saddam is really hiding? And what they want to do about it?

Support in the US is weakening...and the longer we wait, the more time the "no-war' lobby in the rest of the world has to gather steam.

Six months or a year from now is way beyond the window of opportunity for this threat to Saddam. If the US has packed up and gone home by then, Saddam will have stared down the mightiest force the planet has ever known.

How, exactly, will you get him to comply with any sort of UN regulations after that time?

Seriously...I'm listening.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...we seem to be slightly out of sync here. There were several posts up before my reply to macspectrum appeared.

"The US is a BIGGER problem than the terrorists"

The way I see it is this...there is a lot of violence in the inner city. There are two forces at work, the bad guys and the cops. Some who live in the city would tell you that the cops are a bigger problem than the bad guys. Sometimes they might be right.

But what would happen if the cops left? No more violence?

An over-simplification...but there it is.

You want the US to back off and stop pushing at Saddam (BTW-he's just the next name on the list..there are more)

So what happens then?

I'm listening.

Timmer...go ahead and be ashamed of me if you'd like. I am ashamed of anyone who thinks that NOT removing Saddam is somehow going to stop the killing. It will only prolong it.

Just ask adagio's Iraqi friend. He'll set you straight.

Finally, I know _exactly_ how the "rest of the world" percieves Canadians. I spent a great deal of time living in the "rest of the world". many are aware that we are not Americans...almost as many seem to think that we are some sort of American. I always wore a Canadian flag on my coveralls at work, and always had a Canadian flag pin or something on my regular clothes when I was off the rig.

I can't tell you how many people have asked me "what flag is that?". They would smile when I said "Canadian"....although rather a lot simply looked puzzled.

Sometimes I had to explain. They would say "Americano?" and I would say "No, CANADA"... and they would say "AHH...NORTE Americano!"

Think about it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Timmer thanks for the kind words but the "song/poem/ not sure what it is may have a lot of meaning for you but very little to do with this thread in my perception.
Poetry and song are strong methods of communicating and often are used to evince a state of mind or bring up strong emotions.
What's needed is LESS murk and emotion and more rational discussion...which to his credit MacNutt is doing reasonably well despite his past excesses.  
His point is very valid and one that the world is wrestling with...what to do with Saddam?
Many of the rest of us, like much of the world, do not have a clear solution and one reason is we do not perceive him as the kind of threat outside his boundaries that the US is portraying.
MacNutt for his part feels Saddam IS a threat to the world and agrees with the US ..get it over with.
IF Saddam is "ONLY" a tin pot dictator whose teeth have been already effectively pulled then the much of the world feels the greater danger lies in military action which could indeed seriously destabilize the entire region.
The US does not have a good track record of reading which way the wind is blowing - Khomeini being a good case in point. Nor of calculating the consequences of their "meddling".
Saddam is well isolated and certainly his "secular Islamic approach" is not in accord with the fundamentalism of Al Qaeda.
Russia may be able to play a significant role if the military option does not play out.
My thinking is however that Bush WILL ignore the UN and after that it's a complete "crap shoot" as to how events pan out over the next decade in the Middle East. It COULD get very ugly which is what concerns the world most..not Saddam...but the consequences of military action and possible destabilization.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

C'mon Macnutt you WORE that flag for the same damn reason we all do. So we are NOT mistaken for our southern neighbor.
That was a waffle if I ever heard one......serve up the butter and syrup ma!  

The US is a severely divided nation with a whole bunch of domestic issues simmering. There are very strong political forces at work and that has always spelled danger....it IS a violent society with a violent history. That has led sometimes to glory and often times to shame.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I put much more stock in the U.N. than I do in the U.S.

The U.N. is a collection of countries around the world.

It is not the best solution, but the best we have at this time. I think the idea of the security council needs to revamped. How, I do not know at this time.

The countries with mass military power certainly don't want to be on an even keel with a country without a massive military. I know the U.S. certainly would like to see France out of there. Should lthe U.S. have only the same voice as a small country with no military? I don't think it will happen nor that necessarily it is correct.

Comprimise on both sides of the equation will be necessary.

There have been suggestions in the past for a change to the world economy by using "carbon credits" to help spread power and wealth across the globe.

It goes something like this. Each country will have a certain number of carbon credits (basically pollution credits) and they can barter for more credits with smaller lesser (or non) industrialized countries by trading technology for carbon credits.

So the U.S. would be alloted X number of units base on population and avg. world wide consumption. This X will not meet the needs of the U.S. to burn carbon based fuels so they would need to trade technology to get the carbon credits they would need to justify their consumption of carbon based fuels. Another scenario would be that it would force a country like the U.S. to cut back on carbon credits by using alternative fuels such as solar, wind, hydro-electric, hydrogen fuel cells, etc., thereby reducing the need for carbon credits.

If there is an economist out there that can better explain this, I would welcome their notes.

Problem is as always. Those who have power are reluctant to relinquish it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No question about it at all, macdoc. This whole thing could easily go very badly. that's why a swift regime change is the best bet for Iraq...not a prolonged standoff or a war which goes on for months.

The Americans track record under weak democrat administrations like Jimmy Carter (Iran crisis) or the Somalia debacle (Clinton) are well known and not a good example to follow.

Bush, senior and junior, seem to be able to deal with these things a lot better than some of their predecessors (witness Afghanistan and the First Gulf War).

I'm just hoping and betting that George W....with all the stuff he has available...will beable to remove Saddam very quickly. 

I also hope that the rest of the Iraqi military will use that opportunity to lay down weapons...therefore negating a long and bloody war.

Most of the data I have indicates that this is what SHOULD happen. No one can tell of course...until it all starts.

But none of this will happen if we back away. 

Then what? Again...I'm listening.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Out of sync again.

Re:Canadian Flag

I wore it because I am a Canadian. There were a lot of different nationalities working at each wellsite. Some Americans (not many), Australians, Kiwis, South Africans and just about every other group that you could imagine. Many of us declared our nationality with a Flag crest or pin.

I ALWAYS did.

The fact that I often had to explain what a Canadian was...and the fact that ,sometimes, they still got it wrong was the point I was trying to make.

Remember...this was Latin America in the seventies and eighties. Not Europe.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Thanks McNutt
for owning up to where your sympathies lie. (coveralls, rig etc..)
This helps me to cease wondering what your problem is....duh...

Whew!!!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not sure what that means macello.

I worked in mobile testing laboratories at wellsite (oil and gas) for most of my life. Much of that work was in foriegn countries. I got to see the world...and got paid very well to do it.

Pretty much everybody who is a regular here knows all this. It's even in my profile.

I own NO oil company stocks or securities. I never have.

So I'm not quite sure what you meant by that post. Care to explain?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

maybe in the same breath you said "Canadiano", you might have mentioned "Trudeau." 

Might have helped them understand.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...I try not to say that name too often, if you know what I mean. It requires me to hold my nose and make a face that causes wrinkles.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummmm I think you are overworking that "right" brain of yours. That was Michael


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

actually, i emailed macnutt, as soon i saw what i perceived was an error, to give him a chance to edit the post before someone noticed.

too late.

or, perhaps seeing the name Trudeau just got macnutt's juices flowing that his senses "left" him.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Timmer thanks for the kind words but the "song/poem/ not sure what it is may have a lot of meaning for you but very little to do with this thread in my perception.
Poetry and song are strong methods of communicating and often are used to evince a state of mind or bring up strong emotions.

Macdoc, I think a poem about the world we're living in today has everything to do with this perticular thread.









Macnutt, why don't you just post jpeg's of your pay stubbs so we never have to hear it again. It is no surprise that you support an oil war.  Without such military actions people like you would have had to find a new way to make your big bucks.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

do i recall correctly that macnutt likes his cigars?

i wonder if he smokes cubans?

if he doesn't smoke cigars, then please ignore this post


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My apologies macdoc. It was macspectrum who posted the "Canadiano" question.

I should have known...you, of course, would be aware that "Canadiano" is not the correct word.

On to the rest...

I'm not sure what my pay stubs have to do with anything. I was paid by a company that provides laboratory services to a lot of different businesses and enterprises. 

Part of the money that my company recieved came from exploration drilling companies who needed our services in order to locate the zone that had oil or gas in it.

I could just as easily have been testing for something else. Many of the guys who worked for this company had degrees in the Environmental Sciences...and most of what they did had nothing to do with oil and gas.

I was particularly good at finding petroleum products...so that's where I ended up.

And I have no idea why that would automatically make me sympathetic to the big oil companies. 

In my line of work, that would be considered to be drawing a rather sketchy conclusion based on incomplete or misleading data. 

Do that more than twice or so...and you're out of a job. I left the oilpatch to run my own business here at home. I haven't worked on a rig in over three years....and I couldn't give two hoots about Iraqi oil.

Because it's not why the US is there at all.

Large amounts of high-quality Iraqi oil hitting the market would cause a big drop in oil prices...and would have put me out of work for sure. (no exploration drilling when there's loads of good stuff already in the pipeline)

So...can we get back to Saddam? And how we would, or even COULD, convince him to abide by UN resolutions without the US military at his doorstep?

Anyone?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,

that's 2 errors in the last 2 days...

first the error about copps, if elected, would become the 1st female canadian prime minister

AND

now confusing me with macdoc.

hmmmm, what else are you in error about

(cue Star Trek, original series, Capt. Kirk "logic lecture" to NOMAD - episode "The Changeling")

Kirk: "You have made one error. Now you have made a 2nd error. You have failed to realize the errors. That is 3 errors. You are flawed."  

NOMAD: "Sterlize!, Sterlize!, Sterilize!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt the thorny issue is "sovereignty". While the world community has generally been comfortable defending weaker states from their aggressive neighbors, interfering in another nations internal affairs has always been a difficult issue as it puts every country's sovereignty at risk.
Who is to be the judge. Should the shooting of students at Kent state have triggered a world intervention???
Repression of native cultures in Canada??
Caning citizens publically in Singapore??
Britain's interference in Ireland??
The list COULD be endless.
This is one reason the UN really needs it's own armed intervention force that is truly a world force instead of depending on the US so heavily.
Europe is getting there, North America has some multilateral agreements that work and have conflict resolutions ( sort of )- the world needs to get there.
The US going alone is extremely destructive to that process of evolving a world body that is effective. And we need it badly.  
This is about far more than Saddam - he's just a clear "test case".


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt...
To give you credit for being somewhat candid,...hmmmm... how can I explain what you are increasingly revealing as a view quite to the right of Steven Harper, the neo-cons and probably from the next page to the right, making the current Bush family fart catcher, a Mr. Mulroney look like a pink tory.
It must be painful indeed to hear the international applause for Mr. Blix when chastising Mr. Powell and his decidedly lack of intelligence community on "incomplete and misleading data". (did you buy your ductape?)
" Because it's not why the U$ is there at all "......is precious indeed. 
What the blank do you think the Bush family business is ? Dragon slaying and routing evil doers... for the freedom, joy and happiness of all peoples?
Teasus effing Thrice! Hellooo...

anyhoo...so..thanks for the transparency......

N.B. memo to yourself: reread "The Emperor's New Clothes".

By the way, we might do a bit less slagging on that pathetic "quite presidential" doofus as he merely does his handlers' bidding and; ... where is Dick Cheney's currently undisclosed location and why is he so quiet and secretly protected and not the court (stop the vote counting!) appointed "not a moron" President ?

This is all frightening to all of my esteemed American friends who cannot voice their freedom of expression without being branded, photographed, enumerated in data banks as traitors and in many cases falsely arrested and held in detention without charge in the country they love. This is very well documented. 
Check MacDoc's URLs and many others...or..

"sometimes we have to temporarily sacrifice our most cherished principles.yada..for the sake of...yadayada.......trust us." 
Your Heimatsichereit....(opps!)...er ...Department of Homeland Security.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 
quoted by macello
Your Heimatsichereit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one macello!

Speaking of which, anyone heard the story of Rumsfeld's relatives in Germany that publicly stated they have disowned him?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
*The Afghani families of those civilians might not agree with you.*

Oh, I understand completely. It would be far better if the number of civilian casualties were zero, but at the same time it could've been much worse; we could be discussing casualties in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

*Uh, excuse me? How does mining the harbours of Nicaragua, for which the U.S. was found in violation of international law by the World Court at the Hague, violate the rights of American citizens?*

Sorry, my brain's broken. I was thinking of the International Criminal Court, not the World Court.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

jfpoole,

http://www.thebraindoc.com/ 


M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole,
i have a great power drill and am willing to donate it to such a worthy cause. I'll even deliver it for free!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Millions around the world march in protest. http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0600&id=030216011032166755 
i only hope the politicians were listening


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree with macdoc et al that it would be far better to have a military wing of the UN...one that could enforce the regulations and resolutions. 

A military that was, at least nominally, purely neutral, and only commanded by the UN.

Kind of tough to do though. Some countries have very well trained crack troops and some have...well...somewhat LESS well trained people. I'm not sure what would happen if you tried to mix the two, but I bet the end result wouldn't scare anyone but themselves.

So....we don't see any sort of independant military force coming from the UN anytime soon. Therefore...

My question remains. How do we make Saddam obey the UN rules that we set before him _without_ the US military camping on his doorstep?

He has projected force outwards more than anyone else in the whole hemisphere. He funds terrorism in Israel and who knows where else. He starves his own people while spending on weapons and frills.

The UN recognises that this guy needs a set of rules. How do we enforce them if the US calls off the dogs...which is what was being advocated at the very beginning of this thread.

Any answers? I'm listening, honest.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

U.S. bird of prey


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

US bird of prey?

I think that might just be a Russian built "Hind" attack helicopter Michael.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,
sometimes just the presence of the "dog'" is enough to disuade an intruder. one also must keep a leash on one's "dog" and not just let it bite at anyone you please.

Mi-24 - special order for U.S. military - the U.S. regularly buys russian/ex-USSR military hardware to "train" against

maybe the boys at the base just got bored one day and decided to do a number on the chopper

Dr. G.,
of course your doxies are excluded from such an analogy.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*i have a great power drill and am willing to donate it to such a worthy cause. I'll even deliver it for free!*

Thanks for the offer, but I've got a nice cordless drill here that should do the trick. I'd feel bad if I mucked up your drill by drilling holes in my cranium


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole,
not at all. i did say i would 'donate' my drill to this honourable and most worthy cause  

btw, u ever see the movie "Pi" ?
there is a drill scene in it that might serve as training.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*not at all. i did say i would 'donate' my drill to this honourable and most worthy cause*

Oh, right. Quite obviously my brain is in more dire need of repair than I thought!

*btw, u ever see the movie "Pi" ?
there is a drill scene in it that might serve as training.*

I have seen the movie, but I don't have the blinding headaches (among other things) to drive me to trepanation, just the thought that maybe I'd think better if I let the evil spirits out of my skull


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*sometimes just the presence of the "dog'" is enough to disuade an intruder. one also must keep a leash on one's "dog" and not just let it bite at anyone you please.*

Ah, but if the intruder knows that you're going to keep the dog leashed regardless of what the intruder does, the deterrent effect is minimal. The intruder just has to make sure to stay out of the dog's range


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> jfpoole wrote:
Ah, but if the intruder knows that you're going to keep the dog leashed regardless of what the intruder does, the deterrent effect is minimal. The intruder just has to make sure to stay out of the dog's range <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you see a sign on a gate of a house that reads "Beware of Dog" and you see the dog barking there behind the gate, do you enter?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, when you come to my door (we have no gate and a "beware of dog" sign) and hear our doxies going wild behind the door, many people just leave. They sound so fierce and have such a lour bark for such a little dog. 

Re Iraq, I think that we should heed the words of Theodore Roosevelt and "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." I think that the talking should be done at the UN, but the stick might need to be used someday. We shall see.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Some interesting comments from Maureen Dowd's column in th NY Times this morning:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> * Even leaders who would be happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein are put off by the Bush team's locker room taunts, counter-terrorism doctrine to "compel" other nations to get in line and bullying bromides. . . . Even some hawks think the administration's rhetoric is gratuitously gladiatorial. Radek Sikorski of the American Enterprise Institute said on the Diane Rehm radio show, "there is sometimes a little bit too much testosterone in the air in these trans-Atlantic exchanges . . . and sometimes in these matters flirtation and compliments do more good — achieve aims — than, shall we say, a more direct approach."

The real reason the Bush team has leapfrogged Iraq over more urgent priorities is that conservatives won't be happy until they erase what they see as the emasculating legacy of leaving Saddam in power, back when we were tied up with our coalition of nervous Nellie allies.

Henry Kissinger summed up the logic of conservatives: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired."

The painful parts of Washington history have often been about men trying harder to save face than lives.

With or without the fussy Frenchies, we're going to war. For this White House, pulling back when all our forces are poised for battle would be, to use the Bush family's least favorite word, wimpy. 

*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

"For this White House, pulling back when all our forces are poised for battle would be, to use the Bush family's least favorite word, wimpy."

translation - "we came to kick some a** and we're not going home 'til we do" - typical, ignorant, drunken bully attitude.

*DON'T ATTACK IRAQ*

More anti-war info and great links HERE!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(The content of a letter to the editor I wrote today)

Warming up with steaming cup of tea after Saturday's march, I watched some of the news coverage of worldwide marches on CBC, CNN and BBC. One theme seemed to run through each network's reporting: "Who are these protesters?" 

Are the people who sit behind the anchor desks somehow removed from the rest of society? How can they express such incredulity that a grandmother, a janitor, a homemaker, a student, - people from all walks of life, could hold the opinion that war in Iraq is a bad idea, an idea being pushed for reasons that have little to do with "weapons of mass destruction."?

The CNN's Carolin Lin in particular seemed quite amazed that those in the streets of London, New York, Paris, etc., were not just a bunch of rabble-rousing disaffected youth anarchists.

Imagine that... the average person is actually paying attention to world events, and holds those events in sufficient regard to take local action for what they believe is right. This can only be good for the media, to learn that their product is in greater demand than ever. Too bad for most news outlets, we are demanding a higher quality product than we seem to be getting.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
*http://www.thebraindoc.com/*

Bah! I don't want to have to travel to California to get my brain fixed, when a power drill and a steady hand will do the trick.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark, your posting reminded me of a statement the Lyndon Johnson was quoted as saying pertining to watching the news of protestors to the war in Vietnem. Walter Cronkite, THE anchorman of the day (1968), commented that the only honorable thing for the US to do was to seek an honorable peace settlement. When LBJ heard this, he was quoted as saying, "If I have lost Cronkite, I have lost the average American." I too was struck by the civility of the protestors throughout the world.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

First off, thanx to all who posted real facts and links, especially macdocs effort, and not just conjecture. This helps us who are not as informed make better choices.
Macnutt, I see time and again that you want an answer to how to deal withSaddam without US military intervention. 
Heres my take. I think that through an evolving dialogue, a solution will be found. There is no answer right now, black and white, short and sweet, etc... The process of talking will open up the way to a peaceful solution. But you must give it time. Why all of a sudden is it imparative we "whack" SH today? Why not last year, two years ago, etc...? This is one of my greatest concerns. Why now, and if so why not earlier. Pre 911. Late 90's. Right after he kicked out the weapons inspectors the first time. 
Patience and a cool head are what is required here. 
Also, what do you do whenyou kill SH? Put in your own choice? We have seen what happens when the West tries to "help" by putting into power its choice of leader. What I think you and others here don't realize is that by just killing the top guy you only make martyrs. What we of the west must do is understand the reason for them being so popular and take that reason away. Imagine if you sent all those troops in with medical supplies and food and such forth. Within a short period there would be a public uprising from within the country. This would be a better solution that destroying more homes and civilians. 
Please rethink your ways, cuz it will lead to war and the destruction of this planet.
Force is not the answer, never has been, but it is easier, safer and quicker that trying to find a peaceful solution.
Robert
ps: when you say you have lived in foreign countries, did you work with the people at their 9-5 jobs or just live in the same town? I ask because there is a huge difference. I worked with Australians in Australia doing manual labour, bricklaying and carpentry for 6 months. We would work, go to the pub and then home for dinner. I believe I understand a "small part" of Aussies from this close relationship. I would not say I know how they all think or why.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Thank you Robert...it was nice to finally get some sort of an answer to my question.

Firstly...when I lived overseas I worked 28 days on and 28 days off. The 28 days off were spent wholly within whatever country I lived in at the time and I developed quite a few close personal relationships with the people who lived there. I also traveled around and had a really good look at the place, sometimes in concert with local friends, sometimes by renting a car...more often by taking a train or bus to the farthest corner of the country and working my way back home.

It was fascinating. Some of the best times of my life. One heck of an education too.


On to Saddam...

I like the tone of your reply "over time some form of dialog will allow us to come to a solution". But I don't think there is much substance to it. I also don't think that Saddam can be dealt with without the threat of force. History has proven this.

Why now? Why not several years ago when the UN inspectors were first kicked out?

Two things here...Bill Clinton was in the Whitehouse back then and he was not very clear about foreign affairs. Too many of his own to worry about. Also 9/11 woke everyone up to the fact that a pro-active approach must be taken towards countries who harbour and support terrorism. Saddam is clearly supporting terrorism in Israel, and most likely a lot of other places as well. To leave him there is simply inviting further problems. History has taught us this.

The other way of dealing with terrorism is simply to wait until a terrorist attack happens, and then backtrack and deal with whoever was responsible. Trouble with that is, some of the weapons of mass destruction...particularly the biological agents...could devastate a large part of whatever country is the target.

These are exactly the sort of weapons that Saddam has been accused of building or buying.

Do you want to wait...and hope that he can be contained? Or would you like to see this potential threat removed before it can turn into something much bigger?

BTW-The Iraqi people do not like Saddam. They are held at gunpoint by this madman. They want him gone as badly as we do. He would not likely be thought of as a martyr by anyone.

There is a considerable school of thought who believe that Saddam might actually be taken down from within, by his own people, once they knew an attack was in progress. They won't do it while he is in control...it's been tried before, and the perpetrators and their families paid the ultimate price for the attempt.


So...what I see is an admirable desire to "not go to war". I applaud this. However, having declared that you do not want to attack and remove Saddam...you must then have some sort of a plan to deal with him in a very real way. Not something nebulous like "negotiations and dialog". And not just another UN resolution...that would be number 18, I believe...and he has ignored all of them so far.

Because if you don't deal with him in some very real way, successfully, then we all take the risk that this psychopath will finally amass the horrors that he has been seeking for more than two decades...and provide them to the people who want to "destroy the infidel and cleanse the planet of their evil." 

That would be us...you and me.

Quite a gamble. Still think he should stay?


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr.G.:
* I too was struck by the civility of the protesters throughout the world.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... because these marches were for peace - in all earnest. The sense I received from my involvement in the Toronto march was if anyone were to waver from the true purpose of the rally, they would likely be quickly dealt with... by fellow members of the rally. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I could only feel a real yearning for an attempt at peace all around me. Violence is unacceptable to this cause. I saw the outbreaks of violence in Greece and minor skirmishes in New York and I'm embarrassed for those individuals. This is NOT what "we" were about!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mississauga, in the early days of the protest marches I participated in against the war in Vietnam, such marches were peaceful. Then, the marches became more numerous and larger in scale. There were violent clashes between some protestors and the police at some of these marches.....even though the march was for peace. Thus, even though a march was intended to support peace, there was still violence. When the anti-war marchers became openly violent, I decided not to participate in these large gatherings, and, instead, go one-on-one with me draft board. In the end, I won, although I had to face going to jail for two years for this conviction of conscience.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A quick question to all who attended the protests...either in spirit or in person.

Will we have peace if Saddam is left where he is? Will the Iraqis have peace if he stays? Will the Israelis have peace from the suicide bombers (who are financed largely by Saddam)? Can we now stop worrying about Saddam and his unaccounted-for chemical weapons?

Or have you simply prolonged the above, because taking any action to stop it seems to be against your principles.

What is peace, in this case? Have you attained it...or simply given Saddam some breathing room? If force is not applied...will he negotiate in good faith?

Think about it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, it should be interesting to see the answers to your questions from the others in the group. I wonder what will happen if they actually do find something deadly, which I feel is there, somewhere in Iraq. What many people would like to know is what happened to all of the weapons that were there until the UN inspectors were forced to leave the country? What was made in those four years of their non-inspections? What is the alternative to war that will not condemn thousands of innocent Iraqui citizens, Israel and those in Kuwait to a tragic fate if there actually something being hidden? No, there will not be any easy answers to your questions. We shall see.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*Thank you Robert...it was nice to finally get some sort of an answer to my question.*

Ah, I see. In your mind the discussion is over regarding my suggestion that the world community institute a comprehensive and managed trading regime to restrict weapons and permit food, medicine, etc. Is that why you are asking us for our opinions, so you can systematically throw them out, ridicule any non-violent approach, and then conveniently forget the ones you don't agree with?

*
Bill Clinton was in the Whitehouse back then and he was not very clear about foreign affairs.*

HAH!  And the Shrub <u>*is*</u> clear about foreign affairs? This is the (so-called) President who, prior to coming into office, made it clear that he had no desire to even <u>have</u> a foreign policy, apart from tequila-swilling sessions with Vicente Fox south of the border.

It was during Clinton's reign that the U.S. continued on an almost-daily basis to drop bombs on Iraq (a practice ongoing for 12 years, though the media wouldn't let ya know it), and who authorized the destruction of an aspirin factory in the Sudan while acting on that oh-so infallible U.S. *cough* "intelligence" (which we are to believe has improved a hundredfold in time for Colin Powell's presenta-- oh, right, the UK report, shoot... forget I said anything about "improved").


*...you must then have some sort of a plan to deal with him in a very real way. Not something nebulous like "negotiations and dialog". 
*

I see... so military force is the only option, in your view. Well.. it's a fait accompli, then, why bother talking about it.... 

*
And not just another UN resolution...that would be number 18, I believe...and he has ignored all of them so far.*

But, gee, the U.S. and Britain are right this moment working on another resolution... shall we tell them to not bother?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,
sounds like you prefer a "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude towards the situation

you keep asking the same questions over and over and over again, like somehow your repetition will drive your point home

(please no 'not so coy' rhetoric about "but i am asking questions but they are not getting answered". address the substance and not the semantics)

millions of people spoke out yesterday by marching in demonstrations. they prefer a "ask questions first"

as was asked earlier; why is saddam such a priority at this moment? did you ever ask yourself that question?

perhaps it is to shift the attention of the american public away from Usama and over to something else, more easily found on a map?
the shrub is just looking for someone to "blow up good" so he can point his finger and say; "there is the evil that propogated 9/11, put all your hatred there!"

btw macnutt, if daddy shrub supported the Kurds the 1st time around (when there was more support for an invasion of iraq) the Kurds could have overthrown Saddam but daddy shrub left them (no pun intended) hanging in the wind


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Macnutt, thanx for the answers. Sounds like a great time of your life.
Now, as far as waiting, I recommend moving ahead slowly. My greatest fear about attacking Iraq is sides will be drawn. Then, they will nuke these people and those peole will nuke these people... Its sort of a pandoras box. Once its opened, you can't go back. The risks are extremely great and I fear the American/British "guns blazing" approach will do more harm than good. What do you think the outcome will be from the Arab world once they see America come in and attack Iraq? Not all of them will be thrilled.
Robert


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

One more thought. I believe in protests because its a way for the people to let politicians know what the people are thinking. From experience, I have tried to contact my MP regarding another local cancern. He or his staff never responded or acknowledged my request. This means I am not truely represented federally. So by protesting, people can "get the message out" so to speak.
BC'ers should know this. When I lived out there, politics are one of the things what made life interesting. That and trying to find people who were actually born in Vancouver.
Robert


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

macnutt,

If you care to do a some reading/research, in an effort to learn a little about "peaceniks" such as myself, here's a good place to start. Call me a tree-hugger, but I like many of the things this organization stands for. Their reasoning behind the support for a peaceful resolve to the Iraq issue sums up my feelings fairly well.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I don't expect any anwers but I like to muse in the face of very complicated issues. Why didn't the U.S. kill Saddam during the Gulf War? I've heard about his ability to hide and his numerous palaces that all prepare meals for him everyday, and so on, but I don't really buy it. 

As for war, it is sadly only a matter of time now. I have no problem with Saddam's impending death - even knowing I'm mostly against capital punishment. I only hope that the people of Iraq will incur as few casualities as possible and that their lives will improve after the U.S. military strike. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but I hope not. 

I sincerely hope these protests help influence positive change and that all the people who attended them will be just as willing to march for similar causes in the future. There were other wars in the 90s (that didn't seem to raise much action here - for instance, in Rwanda & Bosnia) and there will be more to come. 

Stay diligent and stay informed. As others have said before me here, thus endeth the sermon.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Great Googa Mooga, this thread is a long read! So this is where you have been getting those post number eh Macnutt?

So anyway, on to business. originally, I had decided to not get involved in this thread, but after reading the whole thing I have some things to say/ask.

1) Will Saddam respond to anything but force? I don't think so. I don't think that he will do anything that anone asks/tells him to do unless they have a gun either in his face or his back.

2) Is Saddam an evil man? Yes, I would have to say so. The killing and the constant raping of his own country prove this.

3) is the US the "good" here? I don't know. Sure, free society and all that jazz, but also the leaving the kurds springs to mind. Also, the US backed trade sanctions that keep Iraq in the state it is currently in. Sure, Saddam keeps the food from the "food for oil" plans for himself, but at the same time it is a little too much to place all the blame on him for the children of his country to not even have pencils to write with (as they contain a component of a nuclear warhead, graphite I think is the one, could be wrong) or medicine to maybe save a few of them from disease.

4) Will peace marches stop the US from going to war? I don't think so. Bush seems pretty determined, it is unfinished republican business after all. The problem I have with it isn't anything to do with the fighting though, its the fact that despite the MILLIONS of people protesting Bush and Co aren't giving it a second thought. He's ignoring what a growing section of the public wants now and counting on the publics tendency to rally behind the president once war is declared.

5) Should Canada go to Iraq? Nope, not without the UN. Sure, it would be a great way to boost our lagging relations with washington, but at the same time what could we really contribute? How many units were in Afghanistan? What did they really contribute there? It was a token force, nothing more really. Maybe if Jean gave Bush a call and got his promise not to bomb us this time.

6) Once war starts in Iraq, could it be the start of a long and slippery slope to WW3? It could, very easily. In fact, while I would support an action to get rid of Saddam it concerns me that no one is talking about what might happen AFTER. As noted previously, who's to say that Iran wouldn;t attack Iraq after the US is out (or not so much out), with further complications in Israel? How do you know that N. Korea wont lob a few nukes at [insert some country here] jjust for attention (as really, the "we have nukes" thing did seem like a cry for attention, but maybe that is the comic writer in me talking).

7) Is the US moving towards a police state? Yeah, actually they are. If you dont believe me, have a look at the Logo for the dept. of Homeland Security. Its got the all seeing eye in it for cripes sake. You have Donald coming out and changing his mind so often that sometimes you wish he'd just say "we're going with a rainbow prediction today, yep, we couldn't decide so we are elevating the threat level to ll of them combined!" (again, this may be the comic writer in me talking)

8) Should the US be the police of the world? No, I think that something else should be established. A military wing of the Un perhaps? Someone (probably Macnutt) mentioned before that it wouldn't work because of the different training levels of national armies, but a merging of units from different armies without further training would be ..er...um...shall we say a mistake? Any kind of world police force would have to be governed by the UN and hold allegence to the UN (not any country in perticular) and they would have to be all trained together. I, unfortuneatly, dont see this kind of force being established any time soon.

9) What needs to happen afterwards in Iraq? Well, the US needs to not bail out. they need to stick around for a number of reasons. For one, to make sure that none of the neighbours try to annex parts of the new and weak Iraq, for two to help establish a working government, for three they need to make sure that the Oil market doesn't get flooded right away in one big shot so that the prices don't plummet so that economies don't crumble (or at least crack).

10) is the Bush Jr. the Right man for this job? No, i don't think so. But then again, Gore wouldn't have been either. Where I think Bush is too forceful sometimes (as in being gung ho to charge in guns a blazin') Gore I don't think would be forceful enough. But considering that the US people didn't really seem to give a crap about which one of them in office, I don't suppose it really matters, does it?

That is the end of my disjointed mumblings for this evening...er...morning. May post back again later, but not sure.

--PB


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

A good summary PB. And I thought I was up too late. Oh wait. . . I'm still up. 

Another reality of this whole mess is that the UN and NATO are in need of a major overhaul. Creating a new organization or making a new structure for these though would be another epic post or two. . . or one hundred.










As for Saddam, he needs to go. He can be squarely blamed for a lot of Iraq's problems. I'm no authority on the trade sanctions but they weren't imposed just because capitalists are bullies. (Not an argument I want to start so continuing on - ) Iraq used to be a wealthy country before their dear old dictator stepped in. Well sure there are other factors in this equation, but Saddam is "not that innocent." Oh baby, baby. It'd be preferable if a UN led force removed Saddam or at least the U.S. weren't spear-heading a war that by-passes the UN. It seems a dangerous precedent to set. And if the U.S. finds all the weapons it claims are there, it will reflect very poorly on the UN.

Why can't we all just get along. . .  

Okay, before I continue mumbling ridiculous one-liners I'm off to bed.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Cynical critc
Here's one for your morning coffee: http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war18.html


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

I feel the need for some hard info on the following:
What evidence is there that there are within the borders of Iraq or ever have been terrorists currently acting or in the past have acted in a threatening manner towards the United States?
How many active Iraqi terrorists have been captured to date?
I need this knowledge based on the US's insistence that it will act unilaterally against Iraq presumably based on the declaration below from Condalisa Rice's National Security Strategy (Sept.02) :

"While the United States will constantly strive to
enlist the support of the international
community, we will not hesitate to act alone,
if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense
by acting preemptively against such
terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm
against our people and our country."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html 

Keeping in mind and not to digress significantly, that we, yes we! through the good offices of the UN have been bombing Iraq for eleven years now at an average of 4 sorties per month giving about 500, one might wonder what is wrong with this picture.??? 
Did they miss?
Has there been an assessment of the effectiveness of such sustained and costly international resolve ? .....Duh.......?
Has it simply been decided to better just carpet the place with "ordinace"?
I must know these things lest my cynicism amuses me to tears.

"A U.S officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2'000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2'000 lb. bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile."
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/dossier/herold12-6.html 

Bombing a country to get one man is not exactly conventional


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macello, i don't drink coffee but the laughing did generate an good endorphin rush. thanx.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

..and if you think the mind set far fetched on the GYWO strip, here's a comment on the Department of Heimat Security's Alert Orange! in today's NYT.com:

"Some officials have said that lowering the alert level would help calm people who have been frightened by the repeated warnings from top officials in the Bush administration. 
Others have suggested that it might be better to lower the alert level soon to enable the administration to raise it again if the United States commenced hostilities against Iraq."

Goering could not have done better. Helloooooo!

NYT by the way has done it's proxy bit. Read Freidman's Sunday OpEd for a foaming at the mouth diatribe on China's lack of enthusiasm for the invasion.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Brilliant!!!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"Lack of Enthusiasm" - isn't that the new HBO show by Larry David? 

so Friedman gives China hell (great idea to piss off 1.3 billion people,eh?) and Rooney **** all over France last nite on 60 minutes....

Let's see who else has been getting their cheques from the "Dept. of Agriculture" - wink, wink, nudge, nudge


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
*"Lack of Enthusiasm" - isn't that the new HBO show by Larry David? *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Curb Your Enthusiasm", yeah.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think PosterBoy summed up the whole situation pretty well. I agree with pretty much everything he said. 

Personally, I think we have just about done this subject to death. Now we just have to watch and see how the whole thing unfolds in the coming weeks. I suspect that the US will attack, and I also believe that it will be done with a new UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq. Kofi Annan expressed just those thoughts yesterday on CNN. They will go in with at least five other Nations as a coalition. Definitely Britain and Australia...probably Spain, Italy and Canada...possibly Germany and Russia as well.

It had better be over quickly. Otherwise we are all in trouble.

I think, based on previous performance, that it will be over very quickly. 

That's when the really difficult job starts.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt wrote:
*It had better be over quickly. Otherwise we are all in trouble.

I think, based on previous performance, that it will be over very quickly.

That's when the really difficult job starts. *

I think that another part of the problem (which I didn't mention before) is that Bush Jr. doesn't really have any interest in doing the really difficult part. It seems more like he will go in, shoot everything, install an unstable government and then move on to N. Korea (or whoever is next on the list). This is why I am (and everyone else should be) worried about the thin edge of the wedge (or slippery slope, whichever you want to call it).

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Valid point PB. Let's hope that some of the other members of George jr's Administration are true visionaries and know that this could be a golden moment...an opportunity to change the Middle East forever. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condy Rice and Colin Powell are...I believe... true visionaries.

We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt, care to define "Visionary" ? Given the people to whom you attribute that characteristic, one might be left wondering....

(I do take notice that you left out John "gotta cover up Justice's boobies!" Aschroft)


M


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt
How's the Afghanistan visionary "Golden Moment" goin' eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mark...by visionaries I refer to the same sort of thinking that was present after Japan and Germany had been defeated. These people did not subjugate a defeated country or strip it bare and leave it reeeling. They saw that the very best future could be had by all involved if these war-ravaged countries were rebuilt and given dignity...and, most importantly, democracy.

And it worked.

This is the vision that I was referring to. I believe the current Administration has this sort of vision and intent...despite what you may think of George W.

There are a lot of variables. Only time will tell. But I honestly believe that this is the plan.

BTW-I don't believe John Ashcroft has any authority over anything outside of the US...so I didn't include him.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, not to burst your bubble, but the Republicans in power now would, I feel, have been similar to the Republicans back in the post WW II period. They fought Truman for his desire to institute the Marshall Plan which saved Europe. Thus, their (i.e., the Republicans) "vision" back then would have been to move against Russia in that it was in the best interest for the US, in their opinion, at the time. Had Bush been president back in 1945, I feel he would have unleashed Patton and a fully supported 3rd Army against the Russian front. MacArthur at least understood the Japanese culture, thus allowing the Emperor to save a degree of face.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G thank you and MacNutt you need to be reminded it was the Allies that won WWII.

Europe did a very good thing today by fundamentally backing Britain and the US in telling Saddam that without full and open disarming they unanimously support miltary action.
Whoever designed this gets lots of kudus.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, not sure why you are thanking me...in that I was not born until 1948, and had nothing to do with V-E or V-J Day. My father and uncle were both in the Pacific, but that's another story.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just thanking you for reminding MacNutt that Truman had a battle to get the post war reconstruction plans in place. - that was all.
As your senior by about a year







- neither did I except to be part of the post war celebration aka Baby Boom.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh and Macnutt seems somewhere in this post you said this

posted February 05, 2003 01:38 PM                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah...get out there and make some noise! March around and shout slogans...who knows? it might have some effect, after all."

and after all it DID have some effect. 1.3 million people marched in Barcelona alone  and I'm far more content with the world geopolitics than a week ago.

Sometimes tongue in cheek = mouthful of crow.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

What type of wine is traditionally served with crow? Does it depend on how it is prepared?

White? Red? Rosé?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think German "Bitters" would work well in this case. Settle the heartburn too


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, and I remember how the Republicans howled "treason" when Marshall suggested that the plan be extended to the eastern European countries. I wonder what shape the iron curtain might have taken had they been able to accept this offer? Still, the Republicans were so confident that Truman would not survive his three post-FDR years they nominated Dewey, a weak candidate that would have been manipulated by a strong Republican congress. Well, they did succeed in capturing the Congress, but Truman won the day. He "gave 'em hell!"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Crow is always served with a red wine from France. I should know, I have had to endure many a glass in my day.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Crow is served in a glass?
Wow! Ya learn somethin' new every day !


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

No, wine is served "in" a glass and crow is served "on" a wooden platter. Dear, Lord, we can dress him up but can't take him anywhere fancy. C'est la vie.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Would you believe that I once had moonshine when I was teaching in south Geogia, that was seasoned with the charred bones of a crow and a raccoon????? I can't describe what the first sip tasted like, and I can't remember anything much after the first glass. Kosher wine this was not................but it took my sinus headache away.........made my teeth feel like marshmellows...........and I couldn't make a fist.............but at least the headaches were gone.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

after all dr. g, pheasant can be "served under glass"

crow not being such a noble bird, i thought it logical that it might be made into a mousse and "served in a glass"

i would think a nice Gewertz' would go nicely with crow.

as for GA moonshine - i am sure those "good ol' boys" didn't know from Kosher.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Now that you are all happily congratulating yourselves, and proclaiming me as "eating crow"...for WHAT I do not know...I would just like to point out to you that the UN has all but told Saddam that he has "one last chance". Kofi Annan has speculated publicly that a second UN resolution WILL be necessary, and WILL be passed...one that authorises the use of force against Saddam.

What's more?...Oh...the NATO split has been resolved and now Turkey will be protected during the upcoming military action. 

What else?...Oh...almost forgot....a small fraction of the population of a few of the bigger countries spent the day marching and supporting Saddam. In Vancouver, it was noted by several observers that the Gay Pride Parade generally draws a bigger crowd, and the London police estimated the crowd size as 500 thousand...one third the size that was reported by some of the sensationalist British newspapers.

Yes, it was quite a turnout. Not enough to keep Saddam in power...but he certainly appreciated the effort. Several Middle Eastern press services said he was "really pleased" by the turnout.

Am I eating crow? Nope. Tonight it's freshly caught Halibut and oysters off the beach nearby. 

Pretty tasty, really


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BTW back to the serious side of this I NOW think that the UN will back a military strike within the month. This was about WAY more than Iraq and the US blinked. Europe now shows class by coming on side after making it's point about "Allies".

This may also competely rejig Nato which is long overdue.
Nothing could be better than the US pulling in it's horns very quickly once this showdown resolves itself and sorting out it's own internal conflicts and economy.

BTW Macnutt the marching was NOT about supporting Saddam it was about a different world order than envisioned by the US.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*This was about WAY more than Iraq and the US blinked.*

How do you figure the US "blinked"?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wouldn't you call "going back to their capitals and softening their intended resolution ( US and British )" blinking? Front page on the Star.
We're not talking about Saddam we are talking about UN versus Britain/US.
This is geopolitics on a massive scale and Saddam just happens to be the focal point of the test of wills...not as to WHAT but as to HOW.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Very cool, total solidarity from Europe now AND Saudia Arabia flat out recommending to Saddam that in the interest of peace he step down.  
Now this is the kind of WORLD cooperation that feels very reassuring.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

This thread is puttering out. Cohesion breaking down. . .























Lots of interesting discussion, links and opinions but as Jim Morrison said "this is the end my friend."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't see a "blink" either. To me...Europe and the UN are slowly coming around to the truth of this whole thing. And that simple truth is pretty much how PosterBoy summed it up a little earlier...

Saddam MUST be stopped. He has a vast amount of chemical weapons that are "unnaccounted for"...and he has shown no restraint in the past in using this material. Even on his own fellow Iraqis.

He also does NOT respond to anything but force...or the threat of force. 

The kind that faces him right now...courtesy of the United States.

And, finally...I don't care WHY the heck you guys thought you were marching. Saddam was cheering you on and wishing you well. The Iraqi people were NOT.

Nor were most of the rest of the thinking people on this planet.

This will become terribly evident in the coming days and weeks. Once he is gone...and he WILL be gone...you will all see for yourselves just what a threat he truly is. To ALL of us.

You might just find out who has been selling him some of this stuff, as well.

THAT might be somewhat enlightening, as well.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*Wouldn't you call "going back to their capitals and softening their intended resolution ( US and British )" blinking? Front page on the Star.*

Not really, no. I've not seen the article from the Star, but I'd only say the US and Britain blinked if they decided not to pursue military action at all (either that or they explicity said that they'd only pursue military action if the UN authorized it).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW..Cynical Critic, I tend to agree with you that this thread is starting to peter out.

But..just when I was about to abandon it and step away...it got a bit more interesting. Macdoc is always worth listening to...and he has made some very valid observations. 

I might just stay on for a while.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Come on Macnutt Europe was making a point to the US - that applause in the security council was very clear evidence. You are dodging the reality that the protests reflected world opinion that the US was NOT going about this in an acceptable manner.
Europe's actions clearly show it as an emerging balance to the US. Why is that so hard to accept? It's really, really needed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We are slightly out of sync here...but I tend to agree with jfpoole.

Britain and Australia and the United States did NOT blink. Europe did. So did the UN.

Time to face facts. France is out there on its own...as is often the case..and the rest of the world is beginning to realise that there is only one way to deal with Saddam.....

...and that is the way that the US is currently dealing with him. George W. is pushing this, no matter what anyone else thinks, and it is turning out to be the right course. Al Gore would have been a miserable failure at this, had he won the election. He would have gone for the "appeasement" route...and history would be repeating itself as we speak.

And stuff would be blowing up all around us while a weak President wrung his hands and said "what should I DO??"

Like him or not...George W, is just exactly the right guy for this particular job.

All the marching and shouting won't stop him from removing Saddam. Something we will ALL be thankful for, someday in the future....when all of the facts are known.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why is the thread starting to fade?







There has a been the greatest protest since the 70s and a major shift in geo-political power.
This situation is far from resolved - that was an amazing statement from Europe and policy development for Turkey.
Guys this is serious history in the making and may set the power lines in the world for quite a while to come.
If you want a Part II fine but I hardly see this as a thread to be abandoned.
The IDEA of threads is that you don't know exaclty where they may lead and what the weave may reveal.
The oil politics behind this are enormous, Russia stands to gain immensely over the next 20 years as the US seeks to diverisfy it's dependence on the middle east.
This situation is extremely volatile and could bounce in a wild number of directions, some good, some castastrophic.
World protest is becoming a geopolitical force in it's own right as it showed in the fall of the Soviet Empire.
This is a form fo direct influence by individuals on the course of internationsl decisions.  Exciting and dangerous times.....worth discussing. IMHO


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I tend to agree with you on this macdoc.  

You are bringing an interesting perspective to this thread...even after the original event that it was meant to publicise is over.

As long as your august self...and others such as Cynical Critic, Posterboy, Cubamark et al are willing to continue on this...then I am here to add my comments.  

Shall we continue? It IS rather interesting. And...as macdoc said...a rather pivotal moment in history.

Too cool.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow talk about tunnel vision







The loss of fundamental rights in the United States, it's move towards fascism and the call to resist US unilateral actions by the rest of world don't seem to be of any consequence in your world view.
Don't you consider for a second WHY 88% of Europe feels BUSH is the most dangerous man in the world!!!??? Are all these people world wide so blinded and misled???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BTW North Korea IS a real threat to S Korea and the US has a treaty with South Korea.
With North Korea's current stance as of today I would certainly not be surprised at a US strike.
The treaties are clear, the threat is real to S. Korea and this is a rogue nuclear armed state threatening both it's neightbor and the world. Let the inspectors continue their work in Iraq but I'd sure like to see North Korea dealt with...SOON.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...the figure quoted was actually 84% and the question itself was posed in such a way as to capitalise on the inherent mistrust of a Superpower by those who are not so powerful.

To quote a similar analogy....

The cops are frequently the focus of much mistrust in the inner cities...it doesn't mean that they are inherently evil.

And you just GOTTA ask...what would happen if they left? Went away and didn't look back?

Would we truly be better off? Would the violence and threats stop? Would the criminal activity stop?

I think not.

Macdoc, I honestly think that this will play out well and we will all be very glad about it in the end. George W. will be thought of in a very good light by future historians. They will be analysing every thing that is being said and done during this pivotal time with an electron microscope. All the truths will be known...and all the lies will be exposed.

Then...and only then..will we all know what is REAL and what is NOT.

And if I am totally wrong in my asessment...and the USA is the "Bad Guy" in all of this...I will apologise to you in public. I will also buy you all the beer you can drink. And wash and detail your car for you.

Promise.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This particular thread is now on it's twenty-fifth page. Not bad.

It is a serious rival to Dr.G and Peter Sharman's thread...which, as we all know, had no real subject and no real substance. 

Not bad. We have almost outdone a subject about nothing, by using a subject about SOMETHING. Something that could very well be VERY important...in the long run.

Cool, eh? 

Want to continue?

Have an opinion on this very serious chain of events? You SHOULD have an opinion on all of this. It may very well be the single most pivotal event you will ever be witness to.

Speak up. I'm listening. 

I suspect that a lot of others are, as well.

ALL of us are listening. 

Got a voice?

Then tell all the rest of us what YOU think.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

I am suspicious now of the direction of this discussion having honestly asked how it's going in Afghanistan. The sarcastic tone masked my outrage at a mass amnesia brought on by the current hysteria. 
Therein (Afghanistan) lies some real current truth. 
Given the speculative projection of some posters here, I see little if any wisdom based on real recent past actions and much on wishful thinking.
What has been achieved in Afghanistan?
One would hope that there is evidence of the promises made to those poor f****rs unmentioned in the North American press and even on this forum.
I have the feeling that many would like that those continuing post-invasion difficulties go unnoticed and conveniently forgotten.
What were the goals?
What were the promises?
What has been delivered?
What's next based on that experience?
Without these answers, how can we look at the near future honestly?

If the war enthusiasts had any balls, they might look at this; Here are the truly brave:
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/mdc_team_5.html 

They make the lethal gadget-laden military look pathetic!

"In war, the first casualty is truth"
Winston Churchill

Have a nice discussion.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

For your amusement.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay macello...let's look at Afghanistan.

Before the coalition forces (mostly US military) moved in...there was a fundamentalist Islamic Govenment (such as it was) in charge of Afghanistan.

Women were NOT allowed to attend any sort of school. They were regularly beaten on the streets by gangs of men simply because they were wearing the wrong colour of shoes. Any sort of infraction of the repressive Islamic Sharia rules were punished by death.

LOTS of women were executed pubicly, in the big soccer stadiums in Kabul.

Then the US-led coalition moved in.

Everyone said "there will be thousands of civilian casualties" and "no country or military has EVER been able to sucessfully invade Afghanistan!!"

The British tried it, and failed miserably. The Soviet Union spent ten solid years at it ...and had to leave in total defeat.

No WAY the US could do it! There would be "thousands of civilian casualties" and LOTS of American body bags coming home to be greeted by tearful families.

Ultimately...they would fail in this, the same way that they failed in VietNam.

They would get eaten alive!

But...the US-led coalition managed to defeat and sucessfully occupy Afghanistan within a few short weeks.

And there was an astounding shortage of either civilian casualties or US bodybags.

Surprise, surprise.

And...only a few short weeks after the USA occupied Afghanistan...the Afghani people celebrated "International Women's Day"

When the HECK did THAT ever happen under the Taliban??


Women are now attending school and learning to read. Women are no longer being beaten on the streets for wearing the wrong clothes. Or for the serious crime of attending school.

Don't think that this is a serious improvement in Afghani society?

Then, please explain. I'm listening.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I clearly misjudged and did not anticipate new developments to this thread. Vivé le thread! 

I'm highly dubious of the 88% or 84% statistic ('very biased and manipulative polls are,' says wise Master Yoda). But I do not deny a strong opposition to Dubya. Even members of his own party have been speaking out. I'm not a fan of his cowboy politics (or his "crusade"); however, if other European countries were the Super Power now, wouldn't they be just as suspect and under scrutiny at present? And if not, why? 

Is Blair a "dangerous" man also? I don't have an opinion at present but I'd like to hear opinions and analysis.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I do not deny a serious internal opposition to George W either. This a GOOD thing!

If there were NO opposition to his approach to something as important as this, then I would be asking "Why the HECK not??!!"

And I would be checking to see if we were talking about America, or were we talking about Cuba or North Korea or the old Soviet Union...or some other vanished socialist society.

But...oddly enough...even the most wishy washy members of the UN are starting to fall in line behind the States on this. 

SOMETHING has to be done! No question about it at all. Otherwise we will all suffer the consequences. History has taught us these lessons. Most of us, anyway. Some of us still haven't figured it out.

Then there is France.

France is being very recalcitrant about all of this. One wonders why this is. France, after all, has been invaded without any real resistance by almost every group with a purpose since the middle ages.

You'd think that they'd be a little wary of radical groups by now . But it seems not.

Instead...they would rather not fight. No matter what is at stake. Even if it is their own sovreignty. History has taught us this.

Too bad they haven't learned that lesson yet. BTW-a second World War veteran recently said on a television interview...

"_Going to war WITHOUT the French is like going deer hunting WITHOUT an accordion_"

Plus...there is a very strong rumor that the French were trading weapons to Saddam in violation of all existing UN resolutions.

I bet that is one of the main reasons that they don't want anyone to look closely at the Iraqi arsenal. Same goes for Germany...and to a lesser degree, Russia.

Should be very interesting when the invasion and removal of Saddam actually takes place. A week or three from now.

Some people...and some COUNTRIES, may end up being VERY embarrassed by what is found once it's all over.

Care to bet on who those countries might be?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt, Macdoc, I don't think anyone blinked.

I think they both bent a little. The Americans seem a little less tostesterone-driven since they were humiliated at the security council, and the Europeans, perhaps in a conciliatory manner, gave Bush hope of more international support by acknowledging the U.S./U.K. military buildup is responsible for Saddam's change in attitude and by agreeing time is running out on him. It's worth noting, though, that the EU didn't set a deadline.

There has been little disagreement on the issue of removing Saddam. The debate has always been when and how best to do it. The Europeans and others would like to do it with out opening the Pandora's Box that a military assault would open.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"The Americans seem a little less tostesterone-driven since they were humiliated at the security council,"
That's called a "blink".
Wake up call
Knock, knock anybody home
and Europe and the international community very correctly then reminded Saddam that just because they are are against US "testerone" that they have not forgotten the issue of his disarmament.
Again
"What" wasn't the issue
"How" was!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

FWIW...I just listened to a Canadian doctor who was part of a civilian delegation that spent time in Iraq trying to get a true sense of how the Iraqi people felt about the current situation. The conclusion she came to was that living under Saddam's rule was the lesser of the two evils compared to enduring the Gulf War or the feared upcoming war. Finding a less violent way to oust Saddam was their desire. The Kurds, of course, fear that Saddam will unleash his brutality on them when a war erupts. The regular civilians still have nightmares of the last war and carnage. It seems the Europeans have a better sense of the Iraqi peoples interests in this matter. 
We now take you back to the unbending philosophies of the regular participants


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Having only a little knowledge of the 1930's and early 40's, I find it fascinating how the US is walking the same road as Germany in the early 30's. Hitler used the global depression to win people over and erase fundamental freedoms in the name of bettering the current situation. Bush is doing the same thing with the terrorist threat he sees looming around every corner. I think Blair makes a great Mussolini. 
Robert
ps: regarding Afghanistan, the US are out and on to other things. They leave the cleanup and rebuilding to the rest of the "free" world.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The problem is that we are all treating Saddam Hussein as if he is an intelligent and rational person. He is a despot. He is unpredictable. He has nothing to lose by encouraging everyone to fight to the last. He has shown utter contempt for the world (like the deliberate firing of the well heads after the retreat from Kuwait). This guy is basically nuts. The only person close to his paranoid mentality is the nut running North Korea. Oh, and maybe Michael Jackson (but the only thing he threatens is good taste)! It's not too surprising, given his isolation, his self-styled omnipotency. He simply cannot be trusted. History has many examples of his type.

I'm dead-set against a war for just these reasons. It will be a mess, a nasty, dirty mess. Many innocent people will die. Hussein will willingly condemn his people to death on his behalf.

The solution is to neuter the guy, bit by bit. With the constant surveillance, opportunities to support reform by having people on the ground and uniform international pressure, Hussein will be denuded and made impotent. And he won't realise it until its too late.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

One should also understand that much of what has been going on at the UN of late is political posturing.

The Europeans presented a united front to try to be regarded as a 2nd power (be it 'super' or 'hyper') to America. Stealing Russia's thunder, which Russia is desperately trying to recapture after the callapse of the USSR. The former USSR did have much influence in the Middle East.

Blair might have really missed the boat on this one. Look for him to lose his seat in the next election. A much cleaner way to get rid of him than calling for a leadership review, whcih would be messy at best. Also, look for many of his party members to distance themselves (as some already have) from him as well in the next election.

China of course is also jockeying for position in the xxx-power pecking order. Her accelerated space program is an attempt to push past the Russians and challenge Europe for the now "up for grabs" #2 spot in the world. If China had some foresight, she would bring her pressure to bear upon N. Korea. Instant "brownie points" world wide. Whether it is more important for China to be seen supporting a fellow Coummnist regime (which I don't believe offers much for China) or be seen keeping one of her "satellite" states in line, is a decision that I am sure over which there will much animated discussion behind closed doors. The Chinese must realise the noose that N. Korea has placed herself in and if it tightens due to an American hand, China will lose a glorious chance to stand out on the world stage. The U.S. of course hopes that this noose tightens quickly so as not to allow the Chinese a chance.

I am pleased that the U.S./Britain were forced to blink and the power shift at the UN. I hope this will help ease Saddam out of power with less destruction to Iraq and its people. However, one still has to wonder as to the true motives of the "politicians."

Not many of us turn away from a 2 for 1 deal now do we?


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt, what makes you think that a God fearing people like the US can help a muslim people better govern itself? How do you think the US would feel if it happened to them or us for that matter?
The point of the marches was to say invasion/war is wrong, lets find another way. Don't you think that it would be better if the Arab countries were given time to sort out their own patch. I know they have not done so yet, but, the situation right now dictates that they do something or stand aside and let the US destroy Iraq. 
Worth thinking about from that perspective don't you think.
Robert


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We are, again, out of sync....

North Korea is a real problem. no doubt.

But here is how I see that problem....

Japan and China have a great deal at stake here....and THEY do not want to see North Korea start attacking anyone in the area. It would upset the balance of trade that is steadily improving their collective lifestyles. Or maintaining it, in the case of Japan.

North Korea is in it's dying days. They are starving to death. Kim Jong Il is having trouble even feeding his massive military machine. He knows that, once that food stream stops, he will be a dead man. 

He is a VERY scared little communist dictator right now. He has been forced into desperate moves.

And the US has decided to ignore him.

Time is on their side. Kim can't wait much longer.

The States knows this.

It is an interesting moment, eh?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Answer to Macnutt,

Suffice it for me to say that your posts are expressive of strong (check the caps) feelings and I give you every right to take your stand. (As I would give Bush a certain respect since he's got the gun.)
No disrespect from me... you have my attention ....... However:

I am exhausted having spent some time looking through this thread for even the slightest attempt on your part to substantiate even one mote of wisdom in these posts. I can't even find therein an expression of interest or a refutation of URL references provided by others. That is my complaint.

Do I mistakenly assume that serious discussion has reference to the outside world ? Most use the world wide web as a matter of course to back up claims. That is the marvel of virtual fora.

I try:

Post 1615 from Macnutt in square brackets...
The extemporizing between [Then the US.......] and [eaten alive] is beyond me....otherwise;

[Before ...there was a fundamentalist Islamic Government ....]

The legal basis of the current regime (non-democratic) is in practice that of sharia law.
http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2736&lang=en 

[Women were NOT ............ infraction of the repressive Islamic Sharia rules were punished by death." and on to: "Women are now....attending school]

True in part ... but:

From the International Commission of Jurists (ibid): "women who stand up for their rights take very real risks even in the post-Taleban legal order of the safe haven of Kabul." Nov.2002.

That's just Kabul. (see below**)

[And...only a few short weeks after the USA occupied Afghanistan...the Afghani people celebrated "International Women's Day". ]

I can't find any reference at all to such an event in Afghanistan however there was the short video shown in New York City:

Google > Afghanistan international women's day.

"On Friday 8 March,2002, the United Nations will observe International Women?s Day with a televised event highlighting the status of women and girls in Afghanistan entitled "?Afghan Women Today: Realities and Opportunities?".  .. addresses by... Kofi Annan and Laura Bush, the First Lady of the United States.  The event will take place in Conference Room 2 of Headquarters from 10 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. 
The event will open with the screening of a short video on Afghan women."
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/note5712.doc.htm 

"In January, Hamid Karzai, the Head of the Interim Administration, demonstrated his support for women?s rights by signing the ?Declaration of the Essential Rights of Afghan Women?, which affirmed the right to equality between men and women.  Thus, the restoration of the rightful role of Afghan women in society has begun.  Two women, Sima Samar** and Suhaila Siddiq, are respectively heading the Ministry of Women?s Affairs and the Ministry of Public Health in the Interim Administration.  Ms. Samar is also one of the five Vice-Presidents of the Interim Administration.  She will send a message to the 8 March event."

[Women are now attending........]

** "Ms. Samar has recently been dismissed from her post and detained for a variety of offenses including blasphemy related to laws restricting the right of a woman to leave her family home or that of her marriage." (ICJ et al)

Here's her recent profile: http://www.unc.edu/news/newsserv/univ/feb03/samara021303.html 

Surprise surprise ... her job was to get women educated.

[But...the US-led coalition managed to defeat and successfully occupy Afghanistan within a few short weeks.]

I assume that a successful occupation is one where the occupier has control over the population. I cannot find on the web evidence of a successful USA occupied Afghanistan where the occupier even attempts to exercise the rule of law in justice. See below as to who really is in control.

You are very right to say that [Afghanistan was] and remains [successfully defeated] as it has been for decades.

"The UN and the Transitional Administration have done little to press accountability for past human rights abuses and President Hamid Karzai has described justice as a 'luxury*** for now.' This means that militia commanders who control much of the country can continue to abuse human rights with impunity and most Afghans remain afraid to speak publicly about their concerns." 
http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=880 

[LOTS of women were executed publicly, in the big soccer stadiums in Kabul.]

Certainly true and well documented but your concern for the women narrows the true and vast scope of those and other atrocities which may never see "the luxury***" of justice.

[Don't think that this is a serious improvement in Afghani society?]

You will have to ask the locals ... you or I are hardly qualified to make that call.

Have a look here:
http://www.rawa.org/hrw-women2.htm 

and here:
http://www.rawa.org/na-icg.htm


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macello:
*I am exhausted having spent some time looking through this thread for even the slightest attempt on your part to substantiate even one mote of wisdom in these posts. I can't even find therein an expression of interest or a refutation of URL references provided by others. That is my complaint.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

macello,
He needs none of what you are asking for. Don't you get it, *he travels*. He doesn't need reference or substantiation, he knows how to travel and live in other places. Is that not proof enough of his wisdom?  
How many times in this thread alone has he stated in a post, "I lived in blah, blah" or "I was there once blah blah" etc. Those travels are what make him an expert. Don't waste your time. But the rest of us are interested and can be swayed somewhat by reference and by actually looking at information that appears in other places other than CNN or Fox News.

Keep up the good fight brother, but some of these battles are just not winnable.

G


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Thankee Garyola
Much discussion may be moot as Condaleezza has just advised (today?) that the US invade even if all conditions are met.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/politics/18MILI.html


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Garyola, glad to see you've returned.









And Macello, good link.

I'm not sure if this will be Canada's final position on Iraq, but it seems as though Chretien as finally said it's the U.N. or nothing.

* <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Canada Says Will Not Join Solo U.S. Attack on Iraq

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada toughened its line on the Iraq crisis on Tuesday, saying it had no intention of contributing to a possible U.S.-led attack that had not been blessed by the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council.

U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) says if the U.N. backs away from the idea of authorizing force to disarm Baghdad, he is prepared to wage war with what he calls a "coalition of the willing".

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien has until now refused to rule out contributing forces to a possible unilateral U.S. attack, but on Tuesday he told Parliament this was not an option.

"We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing," he said in reply to a question asking whether Canada would join "a coalition of willing countries".

Chretien last week gave a speech in Chicago in which he strongly urged Bush to follow Canada's lead and tackle the Iraq crisis within the United Nations.

"If they (the Americans) want to go there all alone, they can go there all alone but we say they must go with the authorization of the United Nations. If they don't, the international system of peace and security will probably be more destabilized than it need be," he said on Tuesday.

Whether Canada's stretched armed forces could contribute anything to an attack on Iraq is in any case questionable, since last week Ottawa announced it would be sending up to 2,000 troops for a year to take part in a U.N. peacekeeping mission based in Kabul. * <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Brain Relief For All From: http://www.brockerhoff.net/bb/viewtopic.php?p=283#283 

There was a fire at some huge computer conference. 
When it reached the main exhibition hall:

- The Windows 95 users asked the door guard to close all windows and restart the exhibition.

- The Windows 98 users loaded their installation CDROMs to look for a Windows Extinguisher Wizard™.

- The Windows NT users said the fire would probably be fixed in the next service pack.

- The Windows XP users were asked to reactivate their installation "due to hardware changes".

- The Mac OS 9 users clicked on everything in sight to see if that would affect the fire somehow.

- The Mac OS X users were awed at the cool transparency effects displayed by the fire.

- The OS/2 users reminisced about the much more full-featured fire that burned down the OS/2 User's Conference in 1994.

- The mainframe users pulled the "emergency stop" handle and waited for the field engineer to arrive.

- The former BeOS users commented on how their own fires had been much faster and more efficient.

- The Unix users tried connecting all the stands together with pipes to build a fire engine.

- The SCO users sniffed that the exhibition hall obviously wasn't POSIX compliant.

- The Linux users searched the Internet looking for the hall's source code so they could find out why it caught fire.

- The Amiga users decided there was no fire and went on doing whatever they were doing.

When the fire reached the developer's hall:

- The C programmers started looking for a NULL pointer.

- The Delphi programmers sneered that this would never happen at a Delphi developer's conference.

- The C++ programmers argued about which design pattern a Fire Engine template should follow, and whether the hall's construction was fully ANSI-compliant or not.

- The Objective-C programmers tried to change the fire's behavior, but fought on whether categories or poseAsClass: would be the best way.

- The Assembly Language programmers started to write a very detailed and optimised treatise about firefighting techniques.

- The ADA programmers alleged that the fire was not in their original specifications.

- The FORTRAN programmers began muttering about "COMMON something".

- The COBOL programmers started prowling the hall and looking for Y2K bugs.

- The Visual Basic programmers asked the C programmers to write a "fire" module for them.

- The .NET programmers commented favorably on the fire's fully-distributed architecture-independent implementation.

- The Java programmers attributed the fire to a faulty VM implementation.

- The Python programmers promptly set fire to another hall in a much more elegant way, with fewer lines of code.

- The Perl programmers blamed everything on a subtle fault in the implementation of regular expressions.

- The PHP programmers hacked the fire's code to do syntax highlighting.

When the fire reached the press room:

- The ComputerWorld reporter wrote "Microsoft Fire(tm) takes the conference by storm".

- The PC Magazine reporter wrote "Blazing 3-D effects herald a new era in computing".

- John Dvorak wrote "Duh. Deadly dull conference, second-rate fire. Who do they think they're kidding?"

- The Business Week reporter wrote "Apple's market share is further reduced by conference fire".

- The Wall Street Journal reporter wrote "High-tech stocks may burn in the near term".

- The Washington Post reporter wrote "Fire may be a cyber-terrorist act".

- The MacAddict reporter wrote "Bill Gates should have been here when the Main Hall collapsed".

- The MacWorld reporter wrote "Steve Jobs takes the stage with unheard-of pyrotechnics".


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

That's hilarious! Thanks macello!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

This is amusing. So much for all of Europe[1] being against the US, eh?

It's also interesting that the number one reason for opposing the war in France is opposition to the US.

[1] Unless you subscribe to the French view that France _is_ Europe, of course.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*
[1] Unless you subscribe to the French view that France is Europe, of course.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh the French.

Europe says: "All of Europe, we are going to do this!"

France says: "nope, we're not gonna! we're gonna stay here and have a sandwhich!"**

Seriously though, I saw on the news last night that the EU has commeted themselves to the support of the US. Now, I think it would bt the right move politically for Chretien to say "We go wit you you soudern bastard".

Not because I want war (especially the kind of war that the US is going to make it), but because with more on board there is less and less real reason no to say yes, and because if we don;t say go before th UN says so then the US will probably forget about us all together, which sucks because we used to have a hell of a lot more clout down there than we do now.

I sincerly doubt they'd blow us up again (in fact I'd bet they dance around us like they were walking on eggshells to avoid another incident) and we'd only really have to send a token force, but we'd regain some of the respect that Chretien has lost us in the last decade. At least, that is the hope.

All of that said, I still think waiting for the UN is the right thing to do. I just also happen to think that the right political move and the right thing are different in this case.

--PB

**Shamelessly stolen from a comedian, a dollar by paypal to anyone who can guess who.

pb81


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That was an interesting link, JFP. I hope that some of the others here take the time to read it as well.

Good thoughts PosterBoy. I tend to agree with you. Something must be done. With or without the UN.

Jwoodget, I think that your idea of neutralising Saddam bit by bit has some merit. Nibbling away at his power is, perhaps, the most peaceful way to accomplish his removal from the world stage.

I wonder if it can be done without the US military parked at his front door?

I doubt it. What forces could be brought to bear that would restrict his activities and limit his power without such an overwhelming force staring him down and saying..."or ELSE".

Nothing else has worked, this far...except US threats backed up by the gear to accomplish the deed.

The trouble I have with the whole "no war/no invasion" crowd is that they want this force to be limited or removed entirely. A commitment to not invade Iraq would drop the threat level down to something that Saddam would regard as no big deal....and he would go back to thumbing his nose at the UN. 

Then we'd be back to where we were before George W. started on this project.

And Saddam would have the time he needs to obtain a unstoppable force of his own. One that he would eventually use.

Finally, while I would like to see Saddam removed without bloodshed...preferally by his own people...I don't think it's going to happen. Without some sort of outside help, they will be as powerless to cancel his ticket as they have been for the last two decades.

The way that we are going right now, is the only sure way to accomplish his removal.

BTW-just heard on CTV News that Saddams Defense Minister has just been put under house arrest. The story said he was suspected of planning a Coup. He is a close relative of Saddam...and up till today, was thought to be one of his closest allies.

Interesting.eh?

I've been saying for quite a while that I honestly think that Saddam will be gone in the opening hours of the attack. Possibly from within. The planners of this are just waiting for the chaos to start before they make their move.

Perhaps this fellow was just lining up the right co-conspirators to prepare for the moment and somebody squealed to the boss.

Who knows? I guess we'll find out soon enough, won't we.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

jfpoole
thanks for the .nu driveling ejaculate
thanks mcnutt for spreading it
..........
but no thanks


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Wait a minute. Did I read correctly?

"Canada used to have clout in the U.S." (paraphrased)

Maybe circa 1812, but since the middle of the 20th century, I don't think so.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So, macello and macspectrum, do either of you have any valid solutions for the big question I have been asking all along?

"If the US backs down and the threat to Saddam is removed....then how do we get him to stop killing his own people, financing terrorism, and building or buying weapons of terror?"

How about something constructive here,eh?

Ideas? Suggestions?

Or do you prefer to keep dodging the question? 

It's always easier to attack the people who are posing a pertinent question...rather than actually dealing with the problem.

Or do you deny that there is a problem?

I'm listening. Really. I bet there are several others who are listening as well.

No war? No attack? No direct threat to Saddam?

Okay...what then?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt, do you actually read any of my posts or just stop at the 1st word or 2? 

Here it is again for macnutt. I guess he doesn't need to read, only type.

(crosses fingers and hoping against hope)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One should also understand that much of what has been going on at the UN of late is political posturing.

The Europeans presented a united front to try to be regarded as a 2nd power (be it 'super' or 'hyper') to America. Stealing Russia's thunder, which Russia is desperately trying to recapture after the callapse of the USSR. The former USSR did have much influence in the Middle East.

Blair might have really missed the boat on this one. Look for him to lose his seat in the next election. A much cleaner way to get rid of him than calling for a leadership review, whcih would be messy at best. Also, look for many of his party members to distance themselves (as some already have) from him as well in the next election.

China of course is also jockeying for position in the xxx-power pecking order. Her accelerated space program is an attempt to push past the Russians and challenge Europe for the now "up for grabs" #2 spot in the world. If China had some foresight, she would bring her pressure to bear upon N. Korea. Instant "brownie points" world wide. Whether it is more important for China to be seen supporting a fellow Coummnist regime (which I don't believe offers much for China) or be seen keeping one of her "satellite" states in line, is a decision that I am sure over which there will much animated discussion behind closed doors. The Chinese must realise the noose that N. Korea has placed herself in and if it tightens due to an American hand, China will lose a glorious chance to stand out on the world stage. The U.S. of course hopes that this noose tightens quickly so as not to allow the Chinese a chance.

I am pleased that the U.S./Britain were forced to blink and the power shift at the UN. I hope this will help ease Saddam out of power with less destruction to Iraq and its people. However, one still has to wonder as to the true motives of the "politicians."

Not many of us turn away from a 2 for 1 deal now do we? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I read all of them. I also check out any working links and see what those have to offer.

But...just in case I've missed something, how about summing up in a few sentences just exactly what you would like to see done about Saddam. 

Or don't you think he is really a threat?

Refresh my memory. I'm listening.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

macello,

Wow.  

Finally, someone who shares my predisposition to Google the hell out of everything 

Thanks for some interesting information...

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We are a little out of sync here...yet again.

You seem to have gone back in and edited your previous post to include a quote from a previous page. That has happened after my last post.

I read it the first time around, and I thought that it had some very valid observations....although I notice that you are predicting election outcomes again (re:Blair) You leave yourself wide open for emabarassment that way...much as your hero Michael Moore did when he wrote his long treatise entitled "Payback Tuesday", in which he predicted a sweeping victory for the Democrats in last fall's Congressional elections. His credibility suffered yet another blow from that particularly public gaffe.

But I still don't see what I consider to be any valid response to my original questions. Just nebulous thoughts about dealing with the despot minus the US military threat.

How? What sort of force would be used?

It's the ONLY thing he understands...and the only thing he will respond to.

Just ask the UN. They haven't actually been a roaring success at this whole thing, so far.

So...instead of long (and well thought out, I might add) discussions of the global struggle for superpower status among Europe and China et al...

How about something concrete, to deal with this problem? The one that confronts us right now.

Or would you rather give Saddam more time? Time to get his hands on something truly terrible?

I'm listening. Honest.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Macnutt
Okidoke... j'oblige..(fr.)

To be sure, my description of the driveling ejaculate editorial that I slagged must not be taken personally. I just don't need paraphrasing of the likes of David "Axis of Evil" Frum and that ilk. I'll buy the Sun if so inclined.

I'm sure we have the desire for an effective solution in common. We might differ on "optioning". (spinspeak..dontcha luvit?)

I fear that many favor the " ready-fire-aim " approach that has not endeared the US to the world at large although it has dramatic qualities for consumption.

Others might favor the "ready-aim-fire" approach where present readiness needs no taunting, aim consists of identifying the physical problem and fire by excising that problem alone. 
( much less dramatic )

There is no need or even possibility for the US 
and/or the UN to back down since that presence and the resolution that all parties recognize (even the accordianists) as a given. 

There is no need for puerile threats... why the US government must threaten even its own people with the probability (orange) of biological warfare on american soil is truly insane. 
( Have you sealed your den with ductape yet? )

I do think that such an advanced allied military would be sophisticated enough to drop skilled personnel into the critical sites located by exhaustive inspection and intelligence (no student papers please) and then upon discovery, fire to effectively cripple Saddam's supply and command chain. This might also minimize the bodily devastating GWS problem for exposed returnees from the battlefront.

Failing that, as a last resort an invasion by resolution may indeed be needed; the problem with invasion is that the track record is not good on average since Korea. 

The real and diplomatic success being the bloodless implosion of the USSR.

It is evident from the many URL references supplied in these posts that the US at present has no effective control over Afghanistan. It is merely a hunting party at this point looking for another hunting party.
Osama and the leadership of the Taliban are at large.

If we think for a moment the Saddam doesn't have resources equal to those of Osama, we are seriously deluded.

As well the need for the US to immediately occupy the entire nation seems to make it's goal something other than advertised.

Again as before I refer you to a fairly astute rundown by a conservative organization of a set of problems now facing the US especially if they go it alone:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/politics/18MILI.html 
(If you did not read this when I posted it, you may by now be charged a fee by the NYT. I have a copy if you need.)

I do recognize that my suggestions may not be belligerent enough in tone for the armchair soldiers...but then I doubt there is a real soldier or veteran among them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Thank you macello! Good post! 

And finally some clear answers....

I take it from what you have written above that you agree that removing the US threat of imminent action would not be the way to go. It would be equally counter to puposes if the Americans were to stay in place, but agree not to attack.

You also note that Saddam only understands force.

This is what I have been saying all along. Remove the threat...and he will go back to business as normal.

Removing the threat, or gelding it to uselessness, is precisely what the anti-war protests were all about. Had they succeeded...if they succeed, then we would be back to square one with Saddam.

I disagree with your assesment re: the track record on invasions. It was bad in some instances although WW one and two were a success, and Korea was a draw. The most recent invasions of Afghanistan, Bosnia, and the first Gulf War were quite a bit more effective and not nearly as bloody as in the past.

I think that this one might be even quicker and less bloody. 

It would be very nice if it weren't necessary, and we could all just go home. Trouble is....pretty much everyone thinks that Saddam has to go.

Inspections won't end the killing in Iraq or the financing of terrorism,etc.

And the UN can't seem to do anything on it's own without the US spearheading it all.

So we are back to just where we were before the protests started. A standoff and an imminent invasion of Iraq by the US and several allies.

With or without UN sanction. 

The fact that the US has been working to get the UN onside for more than six months now should say something about their ultimate intentions.

What happens once Saddam is gone is another big question. You have raised some interesting points about this. I suspect that a significant portion of the US population will also be asking these questions. LOTS of them.

But we may all be able to breathe a little easier once the despot has gone.

The Iraqi people certainly will.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macspectrum:
*Wait a minute. Did I read correctly?

"Canada used to have clout in the U.S." (paraphrased)

Maybe circa 1812, but since the middle of the 20th century, I don't think so.







*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the last ten years we have had basically none. Before that, being the States closest neighbou and best friend, we did have a significant amount of influence that we do not have now (thanks to the cuts in spending and decreasing of our presence in Washington).

Since Chretien got in (and even more so since Bush got in) our presence has been cut by more than half. It used to be that the US and Canada were best friends, and now it's like we've moved away and neither of the friends bothers to call any more.

--PB


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Macnutt, I think there are two points trying to be made at the same time. Most, if not all, say that America should not attack Iraq. But, the presence of the Americans in the Gulf region can and is having a beneficial effect on negotiations. 
You keep saying that America should pull out if they don't attack. Why? Now, in later posts, you say the US presence will not be taken seriously (ineffectual) if it just stays where it is. Why? Saddam knows that it would take time for troops to mobilize from North America, but if they are camped out in the area, he won't be as quick to attack.
Also, I have a question I would like answered. The pro-war faction of this discussion board wants to take out Saddam quickly. What makes you think Saddam is the only one in charge. Once hes gone, maybe another will step in and continue on.
Also, what do you suggest "we" do after the "ten minute war"? How do we help clean up the mess?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Robert


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Robert....simply having US forces on standby won't have the same affect on Saddam as having those forces poised to attack at any moment. He has dealt with US/UN troops nearby for a long time and it doesn't worry him very much.

It would worry him not at all if he knew that these same troops were being controlled by a US Administration that had agreed not to use them in a pre-emptiive strike.

This is what the ant-war protests were all about. Persuading George W. to back down from attack mode to standby.

A hollow threat is no threat at all to Saddam. A gun pointed at your head is one thing...but to hear that gun cocked and to see the finger on the trigger start to squeeze gets one's attention like nothing else.

That's when Saddam starts to compromise. Take the threat away...no more co-operation. History has shown this quite clearly.


What to do after Saddam? Now _that's_ a very good question.

Hopefully the US, with some help from the UN, will set up a military governorship just to keep the peace and prevent any new dictators from seizing power during the post Saddam confusion. If the US could get some Arab help with this, then it will be a lot easier for all involved, because it could be a dangerous time indeed. Nobody likes armed foreign troops in their cities. Especially US troops in an Arab city.

BTW- the intent is to remove the whole upper echelon of Saddam's "government" ....just to make sure. Probably during the initial conflict, if possible.

The rest will depend on what the Iraqis themselves actually want for a government. Freely elected democracy? Hereditary monarchy of some sort? Conditional or constitutional Monarchy with an elected Parliament? Another strong single leader with a long-term mandate?

Who knows?

But this is a period that may very well change the face of the whole Middle East. A free and prosperous Iraq would be a powerful draw for the whole region towards self-determination. Especially if Iran goes that way on its own in the next few years. Many people think it might.

Lots of questions but no real answers at this point for any of this.

But either way, the whole world will be far better off without Saddam in control of vast oil wealth and threatening everyone with mayhem.

This is something that pretty much everyone agrees on.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt, thanx for the response.
Don't you think its more about the troops being close by AND Bush being president that make up the threat? Sort of like when Ronny became pres after Jimmy. The point would be to dethrone Saddam and force him into exile. Without the wealth of Iraq to back him, he would be impotent.
I know, he would transfer the wealth out before leaving. But the world has confiscated billions after 911 so it can do it again.
Just a thought,
Robert


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

An interesting thought Robert. 

But I still think that leaves us right back where we are. I see no real way to force Saddam into exile without the use of the US military. This sort of pressure is the only way to get him to move. Remove the pressure...or let it be known on CNN that Pres. Bush has given in to the wishes of the anti-war protesters and stood down from an impending attack...and you'll _never_ get him to leave.

Think about it.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

It appears that the Canadian representative at the UN has just asked the Security Council for a "**** or get off the pot" resolution with an absolute deadline.

That it comes from Ottawa is significant.

Hopefully such a move might help to relieve the nearly unbearable world wide anxiety brought on by all the racheting.
(read rat ****ting)


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

I think as long as there are troops in the area, the pressure is on. Remember, America will bomb the +++= out of Iraq first. No troops will set foot in until all is safe or safer. Ground troops will be used for mop up. 
Now, if the pressure is there and Bush abides by the UN, then this also gives time for Iraqi factions to organize and revolt, so to speak. This would be by far the best sort of solution, non?
Robert


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Yo, MacNutt! Remember the whole e-bomb thing?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm 

Looks like even the Yanks think it could be more destructive than you indicated....

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed! This would be the very best outcome possible...and would result in the fewest civilan casualties. Perhaps none?

But if I were someone fairly close to Saddam, and I were planning to overthrow him, I would do so when his attention is on something else and when he was temporarily out of touch with his most loyal palace guard.

That would be during the opening moments of an assault by US forces. Probably at night and probably from the sky.

The massed troops are there for security and to control the situation after Saddam has been removed. I really don't think there will be massed battles or any sort of huge land-based assault. The troops won't really start to move until all is chaos inside Baghdad and Saddam is no longer in communication with his people.

If a coup is planned, then that is when I would bet they'll do it.

Lets hope. eh?


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

Here's another source of commentary and information RE: Saddam and details of American support. 

I tend to believe this more than any other excuse that Dubya is warmongering. 

http://cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/2/20.html


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Most sound investigation follows the MONEY :

The full list of arms suppliers to Iraq, as published by the taz on 12/19/02, can be found at http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck 

Legend used in this list: 

A = nuclear program, 
B = bioweapons program, 
C = chemical weapons program, 
R = rocket program, 
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants. 

USA 

1 Honeywell (R, K) 

2 Spectra Physics (K) 

3 Semetex (R) 

4 TI Coating (A, K) 

5 Unisys (A, K) 

6 Sperry Corp. (R, K) 

7 Tektronix (R, A) 

8 Rockwell (K) 

9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A) 

10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A) 

11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K) 

12 Dupont (A) 

13 Eastman Kodak (R) 

14 American Type Culture Collection (B) 

15 Alcolac International (C) 

16 Consarc (A) 

17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K) 

18 Cerberus (LTD) (A) 

19 Electronic Associates (R) 

20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K) 

21 Bechtel (K) 

22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R) 

23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A) 

24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A) 

Zusätzlich zu diesen 24 Firmen mit Stammsitz USA werden in dem irakischen Rüstungsbericht knapp 50 Tochterfirmen ausländischer Unternehmen aufgeführt, die ihre Rüstungskooperation mit dem Irak von den USA aus betrieben. Außerdem werden die Washingtoner Ministerien für Verteidigung, Energie, Handel und Landwirtschaft sowie die Atomwaffenlaboratorien Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos und Sandia als Zulieferer für Iraks Rüstungsprogramme für A-, B- und C-Waffen sowie für Raketen benannt. 

Translation:
After the list of US firms are these remarks: "In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories."

China 

1 China Wanbao Engineering Company (A, C, K) 

2 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (K) 

3 China State Missile Company (R) 

Frankreich 

1 Commissariat a lEnergie Atomique (A) 

2 Sciaky (A) 

3 Thomson CSF (A, K) 

4 Aerospatiale and Matra Espace (R) 

5 Cerbag (A) 

6 Protec SA (C) 

7 Thales Group (A) 

8 Societé Général pour les Techniques Nouvelles (A) 

Großbritannien (Great Britain)

1 Euromac Ltd-Uk (A) 

2 C. Plath-Nuclear (A) 

3 Endshire Export Marketing (A) 

4 International Computer Systems (A, R, K) 

5 MEED International (A, C) 

6 Walter Somers Ltd. (R) 

7 International Computer Limited (A, K) 

8 Matrix Churchill Corp. (A) 

9 Ali Ashour Daghir (A) 

10 International Military Services (R) (im Besitz des brit. Verteidigungsministeriums) 

11 Sheffield Forgemasters (R) 

12 Technology Development Group (R) 

13 International Signal and Control (R) 

14 Terex Corporation (R) 

15 Inwako (A) 

16 TMG Engineering (K) 

17 XYY Options, Inc (A) 

UdSSR/Russland/Russia 

1 Soviet State Missile Co. (R) 

2 Niikhism (R) 

3 Mars Rotor (R) 

4 Livinvest (R) 

5 Russia Aviatin Trading House (K) 

6 Amsar Trading (K) 

Weitere Länder/Other 

Japan : Fanuc (A), Hammamatsu Photonics KK (A), NEC (A), Osaka (A), Waida (A) 

Niederlande : Melchemie B.V. (C), KBS Holland B.V. (C), Delft Instruments N.V. (K) 

Belgien : Boehler Edelstahl (A), NU Kraft Mercantile Corporation (C), OIP Instrubel (K), Phillips Petroleum (C), Poudries Réunies Belge SA (R), Sebatra (A), Space Research Corp. (R) 

Spanien : Donabat (R), Treblam (C), Zayer (A) 

Schweden : ABB (A), Saab-Scania (R) 
Erklärung: 
A= Atomwaffenprogramm, B= Biologisches Waffenprogramm, C= Chemiewaffenprogramm, R= Raketenprogramm, K= Konventionelle Waffen, militärische Logistik, Zulieferungen an das irakische Verteidigungsministerium und Bau militärischer Anlagen 

taz Nr. 6934 vom 19.12.2002, Seite 3, 36 TAZ-Bericht 

© Contrapress media GmbH 
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung des taz-Verlags


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Sprichst du Deutsch Macello?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

From today's London Times:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Iraq: key dates in the timetable to war

Tony Blair and President Bush have reportedly been forced to delay until next week the publication of a second UN resolution designed to gain the Security Council's support of a war against Iraq.

The delay has been attributed to continued manouevuring by Turkey for financial compensation for the effects of a war on its economy. This is the current state of the timetable to war.

February 21-22: G7 meeting in Paris.

February 22: emergency Arab League Summit to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh called by President Mubarak of Egypt.

Week beginning Feb 24: US to table the text of second resolution according to a US official travelling with President Bush today. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State said today that the resolution will be introduced “in the near future”.

February 28: Report by UN inspectors. The US, Britain and France are expected to ask for a clear set of "benchmarks" from Hans Blix on Iraqi co-operation which could be used in an ultimatum and form a resolution. Proposed "benchmarks" would include Iraq detailing its production of anthrax. Britain will have 40,000 troops in place by this date.

First week of March: Second resolution to be voted on with short deadline for Iraqi compliance.

March 3: New moon in Iraq. Ideal for better-equipped US forces to fight at night. Equipment for US 101st Airborne Division arrives in Gulf and more than 200,000 troops are likely to be in the Middle East by the beginning of March.

March 14: France's proposed one-month extension for weapons inspectors working in Iraq would end on this day. Next Blix report expected. A second meeting of the Security Council may allow the inspectors more time, but this proposal has been resisted by America.

Mid March: Defence analysts estimate first possible military action as to avoid hot weather fatigue of troops and kit.

Late March: Full ground forces deployment including the British elements could by now be near completion.

March 24: Diplomatic and military logic appears to suggest an attack around this date.

March 27: UN inspectors due to draw up a list of "key remaining disarmament tasks" for Iraq. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Cynical critic
Not since Mennonite childhood. I would speak like a 4yr old.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macello:
 Understood. I'd estimate that I'm at a Grade school level myself.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Letter to London Obesrver (sent to me via email)

A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (ex Monty Python). 

Letter to the Observer, 
Sunday January 26, 2003 

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: 

he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. 

Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. 

I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. 

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But 
that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless redtape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. 

Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush 
has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about 
international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a 
few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. 

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. 

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. 

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a 
future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until 
every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might 
convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would 
be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr 
Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply 
using the same logic as the President of the United States. 

That shuts her up. 

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Oh Terry Jones! That was hilarious. Thanks for posting it MacSpectrum!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

LOL ..perfect Michael....matter of fact there ARE a couple of MY neighbors......hmmm.....why we could have a movement afoot here


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Michael your post reminded me of Arlo Guthrie's anti war song. One of the "tricks" to get out of the draft was to get arrested for a minor crime. I''ve heard this played many times, LOL every time. There's a lot of relevance even now, especially now.








This is talking blues and should be read in a sing song manner to get the feel of it - if you've heard it you'll know anyway....the audience always sings the chorus and always interacts  

Alice's Restaurant
By Arlo Guthrie 

This song is called Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the
restaurant, but Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant,
that's just the name of the song, and that's why I called the song Alice's
Restaurant.

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

Now it all started two Thanksgivings ago, was on - two years ago on
Thanksgiving, when my friend and I went up to visit Alice at the
restaurant, but Alice doesn't live in the restaurant, she lives in the
church nearby the restaurant, in the bell-tower, with her husband Ray and
Fasha the dog. And livin' in the bell tower like that, they got a lot of
room downstairs where the pews used to be in. Havin' all that room,
seein' as how they took out all the pews, they decided that they didn't
have to take out their garbage for a long time.

We got up there, we found all the garbage in there, and we decided it'd be
a friendly gesture for us to take the garbage down to the city dump. So
we took the half a ton of garbage, put it in the back of a red VW
microbus, took shovels and rakes and implements of destruction and headed
on toward the city dump.

Well we got there and there was a big sign and a chain across across the
dump saying, "Closed on Thanksgiving." And we had never heard of a dump
closed on Thanksgiving before, and with tears in our eyes we drove off
into the sunset looking for another place to put the garbage.

We didn't find one. Until we came to a side road, and off the side of the
side road there was another fifteen foot cliff and at the bottom of the
cliff there was another pile of garbage. And we decided that one big pile
is better than two little piles, and rather than bring that one up we
decided to throw our's down.

That's what we did, and drove back to the church, had a thanksgiving
dinner that couldn't be beat, went to sleep and didn't get up until the
next morning, when we got a phone call from officer Obie. He said, "Kid,
we found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of
garbage, and just wanted to know if you had any information about it." And
I said, "Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope
under that garbage."

After speaking to Obie for about fourty-five minutes on the telephone we
finally arrived at the truth of the matter and said that we had to go down
and pick up the garbage, and also had to go down and speak to him at the
police officer's station. So we got in the red VW microbus with the
shovels and rakes and implements of destruction and headed on toward the
police officer's station.

Now friends, there was only one or two things that Obie coulda done at
the police station, and the first was he could have given us a medal for
being so brave and honest on the telephone, which wasn't very likely, and
we didn't expect it, and the other thing was he could have bawled us out
and told us never to be see driving garbage around the vicinity again,
which is what we expected, but when we got to the police officer's station
there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon, and we was
both immediately arrested. Handcuffed. And I said "Obie, I don't think I
can pick up the garbage with these handcuffs on." He said, "Shut up, kid.
Get in the back of the patrol car."

And that's what we did, sat in the back of the patrol car and drove to the
quote Scene of the Crime unquote. I want tell you about the town of
Stockbridge, Massachusets, where this happened here, they got three stop
signs, two police officers, and one police car, but when we got to the
Scene of the Crime there was five police officers and three police cars,
being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to
get in the newspaper story about it. And they was using up all kinds of
cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer's station.
They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and
they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach,
the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to
mention the aerial photography.

After the ordeal, we went back to the jail. Obie said he was going to put
us in the cell. Said, "Kid, I'm going to put you in the cell, I want your
wallet and your belt." And I said, "Obie, I can understand you wanting my
wallet so I don't have any money to spend in the cell, but what do you
want my belt for?" And he said, "Kid, we don't want any hangings." I
said, "Obie, did you think I was going to hang myself for littering?"
Obie said he was making sure, and friends Obie was, cause he took out the
toilet seat so I couldn't hit myself over the head and drown, and he took
out the toilet paper so I couldn't bend the bars roll out the - roll the
toilet paper out the window, slide down the roll and have an escape. Obie
was making sure, and it was about four or five hours later that Alice
(remember Alice? It's a song about Alice), Alice came by and with a few
nasty words to Obie on the side, bailed us out of jail, and we went back
to the church, had a another thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat,
and didn't get up until the next morning, when we all had to go to court.

We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten
colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up,
and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he
sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows
and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog.
And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the
judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each
one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. And
we was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but thats not
what I came to tell you about.

Came to talk about the draft.

They got a building down New York City, it's called Whitehall Street,
where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected,
neglected and selected. I went down to get my physical examination one
day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so
I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning. `Cause I wanted to
look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted
to feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York,
and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all
kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I waked in and sat down and they gave
me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the phsychiatrist, room 604."

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

Didn't feel too good about it.

Proceeded on down the hall gettin more injections, inspections,
detections, neglections and all kinds of stuff that they was doin' to me
at the thing there, and I was there for two hours, three hours, four
hours, I was there for a long time going through all kinds of mean nasty
ugly things and I was just having a tough time there, and they was
inspecting, injecting every single part of me, and they was leaving no
part untouched. Proceeded through, and when I finally came to the see the
last man, I walked in, walked in sat down after a whole big thing there,
and I walked up and said, "What do you want?" He said, "Kid, we only got
one question. Have you ever been arrested?"

And I proceeded to tell him the story of the Alice's Restaurant Massacre,
with full orchestration and five part harmony and stuff like that and all
the phenome... - and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, did you ever
go to court?"

And I proceeded to tell him the story of the twenty seven eight-by-ten
colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and the paragraph on
the back of each one, and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, I want
you to go and sit down on that bench that says Group W .... NOW kid!!"

And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's
where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after
committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly
looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father
rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And
they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the
bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest
father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly
'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me
and said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay
$50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench
there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I
said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand,
and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of
things, until the Sargeant came over, had some paper in his hand, held it
up and said.

"Kids, this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-
know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-
you-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting-
officer's-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say", and talked for
forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said, but we had
fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils on the bench there,
and I filled out the massacre with the four part harmony, and wrote it
down there, just like it was, and everything was fine and I put down the
pencil, and I turned over the piece of paper, and there, there on the
other side, in the middle of the other side, away from everything else on
the other side, in parentheses, capital letters, quotated, read the
following words:

("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")

I went over to the sargent, said, "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to
ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm
sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench
'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women,
kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and
said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints
off to Washington."

And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a
study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm
singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a
situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both ******* and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.

With feeling. So we'll wait for it to come around on the guitar, here and
sing it when it does. Here it comes.

You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant

That was horrible. If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
I've been singing this song now for twenty five minutes. I could sing it
for another twenty five minutes. I'm not proud... or tired.

So we'll wait till it comes around again, and this time with four part
harmony and feeling.

We're just waitin' for it to come around is what we're doing.

All right now.

You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Excepting Alice
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant

Da da da da da da da dum
At Alice's Restaurant


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Tonight on the ehMac Readers Choice Awards, the "Mackie" trophy to the contributor with the longest "cut-and-paste" posting goes tooooo........(opening the envelope)..........MACDOC !!! (audience standing ovation, but a boo from MacGuiver)


----------



## jrtech (Sep 24, 2002)

Yes a favorite on my MP3 player.....
Alice's Restaurant.........still very funny after all these years. <Humming as I type> you can get anything you want..........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I know it's long but it's funny and strangely very relevant - it IS better heard but I figured a link might be ignored. Gotta be careful being wasteful with all those electrons.


----------



## jrtech (Sep 24, 2002)

Well for those who would like a little music while reading this thread I have posted Alice's 
Restaurant to my Public folder on idisk. User id is jrtech


----------



## jrtech (Sep 24, 2002)

And of course the trailer....... http://moviefilmfest.com/800/AlicesRestaurant.htm


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

[We now return to our regularly scheduled misery]

These are the children to which we will refer, posthumously, as "collateral damage":

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/24/1046063965924.html 

M.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Unfortunately it is exaclty that.
politics - from the Latin - Poly (many) and tics (fleas)

Another thread tried to deal with this issue of "Leaders."

There are no longer any visionaries. Just those that spew endless rhetoric and the scary part is that they actually believe the rhetoric they spew.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Many literary theorists call this condition of a reality that is trapped in its own discourse postmodernism. However, many people don't understand exactly what postmodernism is. At any rate, the question cultural theorists and other theorists ask now is what comes next? What will be the next cultural and political move be? This could be another thread I suppose but it seems rather daunting and too heavily jargon laiden to engage in successfully here. Plus it's hard to define a new trend to any great degree unless you're doing it in hindsight.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Why do world politics always feel like Catch-22. I'm not the only one who feels this way, am I?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Just to keep an eye on some of the players: This one not generally publicised.
http://www.who2.com/karlrove.html 

Check the job description .....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61747-2003Feb24.html 

...... and the M.O.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

CC - perhaps instant rainbow coalitions and the world populations facing off against their own and other government's approaches using the internet and the media as an organizing principle heralds an emerging post modern phenomena.

Or one could view it as the re-mergence of mob rule ala the French Revolution depending on which side ot he argument one happens to be








I'm sure Rev. Bush favours the latter view.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Ah Isreal. You give a people that are the victims of the worst crimes against humanity in history and they proceed to have one of thw worst human rights records in history.

I think the most probably line from that Gulf War 2 flash site (see here) is Sharon responding to being bombed saying "We will not over react, we will respond with subtlty and tact", and then proceeding to bomb the crap out of Baghdad.

--PB


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

That was quite the Civ-esque game. Somewhat lacking in interactivity though.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Cynical Critic wrote:
*That was quite the Civ-esque game. Somewhat lacking in interactivity though.*

Next time someone mentions Civilization, I'm going to have to find my copy and start playing it again.

Nevermind the fact that I'm addicted (again) to MOO2.

Nevermind the fact that MOO3 is out this week.

Nevermind the fact that I've got IMPORTANT DEADLINES to meet this week.

*sigh*.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*Cynical Critic wrote:
That was quite the Civ-esque game. Somewhat lacking in interactivity though.

Next time someone mentions Civilization, I'm going to have to find my copy and start playing it again.

Nevermind the fact that I'm addicted (again) to MOO2.

Nevermind the fact that MOO3 is out this week.

Nevermind the fact that I've got IMPORTANT DEADLINES to meet this week.

*sigh*.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention Sim City 4.

Not to mention Freelancer coming soon (the demo is quite addictive)

Not to mention GTA:Vice City

Dammit, I can only play that last one because it is on PS2. The others arent on Mac yet. *sigh*

--PB


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Rev. Bush? Come on now it's not like he wanted to start a "crusade" . . . oh wait. The man is scary. I'm undecided if given their relative situations if Bush or Saddam or scarier at present. I hate to admit it but hyprocritical U.S. politics make it so. 

Then, of course, there's Sharon as well. Although perhaps the coalition government of Israel will keep him in check to a greater degree. He did get re-elected right? I'm not just imagining this am I?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy wrote:
*Not to mention Sim City 4.*

Too big and too complicated, I've found. You need to invest a *lot* of time in SC4 in order for it to pay off. Of course, MOO3 makes SC4 look like Solitare. Holy learning curve, Batman.

*The others arent on Mac yet. *sigh**

Dude, get a Dell! I'm somewhat serious, actually. I've got a Dell Dimension that cost less than 1500CDN and runs the latest and greatest games (I also use it to work from home, but once our Mac port is in good shape I can start using my PowerBook for that).


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Get a pc and play games?
What a groovy way to bomb this discussion.
Bombs away!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Just received an email from an old family friend who told me that his grandson was just drafted into the Israeli Army 6 months earlier than his date of required military service. Ariel is able to speak fluent Arabic, and thus, it was of military necessity that he be conscripted ASAP. 

I can just think what would happen if Bush ever tried to reinstitute the military draft in the US.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*PosterBoy wrote:
Not to mention Sim City 4.]

Too big and too complicated, I've found. You need to invest a *lot* of time in SC4 in order for it to pay off. Of course, MOO3 makes SC4 look like Solitare. Holy learning curve, Batman.

The others arent on Mac yet. *sigh*

Dude, get a Dell! I'm somewhat serious, actually. I've got a Dell Dimension that cost less than 1500CDN and runs the latest and greatest games (I also use it to work from home, but once our Mac port is in good shape I can start using my PowerBook for that).*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Too Complicated? I can see that. from what I have heard there is a lot more micro management in it. Ahh well, give me SC2K any day. In MOO2 I know there was a lot of micro management, I assume it is even worse in MOO3?

2) I had considered that for a few seconds, but then decided that once I have enough money together that I would just head down to one of the many OEM shops in town and buy the parts I need/want and put the mofo together myself. Cheaper that way, plus I can get the software I need (IE Windows)..er.....inexpensively.

What I'd like to do as a hobby (not that I have the space to do it) is some funky case modding. A friend and I already have some interesting ideas, and a name. Booyah!

--PB


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have been reading through parts of this most important thread, and wonder how the views of various people have changed or remained the same? In my opinion, it will be of importance in the next few days to reassess one's view and perspective on this issue, as events "unfold" and take on a life of their own. Personally, I am still greatly torn as to what needs to be done/not done, and what the consequences of these actions might be for the fuutre. We shall see..... Paix.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

DrG, as you know, I think the whole US "we are the world" philosophy will lead to nothing but incredible loss of life. The American approach is nothing less than disgraceful.   
I think this will backfire and in the long run, it will be Americans who pay the price. (I wouldn't want to be one for the next ten years, as I like to travel freely around different countries and they as a people will not have that luxury-ie. targets)
So down with the dicator Bush and up with democracy.
Robert
ps: CBC did an interesting phone in this morning and it seems most Canadians support JC (the other one)in his stance against war.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Robert, I tried to get on the CBC radio 1 call in from here in St.John's where Anna Maria Tremonti's show began it's coast-to-coast-to-coast broadcast, but was put on hold for too long.

I fear that you are correct in your fears that in the foreseeable future, the consequences of the actions in the next week or so will be felt worldwide. We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

important things to note about the U.S. strategy:

1. U.S. blatantly defied UN and didn't bother calling for a vote for military action

2. Bush warned "don't touch them oil wells."

3. Look at the results of America's other recent war in Afghanistan. People are now growing poppies to make opium to make ends meet.

The impact on this region of the world will be felt for decades to come. Unfortunately, instability will rise rather than stability.

The authors of "The New American Century" (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others) certainly have put their stamp on geo-politics for years to come. 

Hail the new emperor !


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I just heard the French ambassador to the US declare on CNN that if Hussein uses chemical/biological weapons that do not exist, then "...the position of France will have to be reassessed". This sounds like neo-Newspeak.

Down with Big Brother!!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think the position of France will be relocated south into the Sahara desert. For all their history of diplomacy, the French diplomats seem to have a lot of frogs in their throats.

Should Hussein not use such weapons of mass existentialism, will it mean he never had them? If US troops claim to have been exposed to VX gas but are not killed, will the gas have been released? If Hussein leaves Iraq and doesn't tell anyone, will the US realise?

Such imponderables. The only thing that is certain is war is a death accelerator.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, did you "used to be..." Jean-Paul Sartre? Was it not you that wrote "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism." (from "Existentialism and Human Emotions"). 

Whomever you were/are/will be, I think that your satire is actually quite profound....although I doubt that Bush would have a clue what you were alluding to in your post. Sad....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G for certain Bush would not have a clue about Sartre...I mean the guy wouldn't even be able to pronounce the topic








There was an interesting cartoon the other day in the Star showing France towing the Statue of Liberty back across the Atlantic.
A letter writer then followed up with the thought that perhaps it was NOT because the US was pulling this "freedom fries" anti-French nonsense but instead because the US no longer deserved the statue.  
An interesting "second take"
http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1045092806301&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/N ews


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, an interesting cartoon. Still, the US is greater than Bush. It survived Nixon and Watergate, which was a great threat to the fundamental freedoms of ALL Americans, and it will survive Bush. There is something fundamentally good about what America represents, and this cannot be destroyed by one president. Did you ever read/see "Seven Days in May"? Or see the last 5 minutes of Frank Capra's "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington"? These are the ideals that may lie dormant at times in the hearts and minds of many Americans, but I have faith that it shall not be destroyed. I may be naive, but I cannot think otherwise. I strongly believe in the notion of "Government of the people, by the people and for the people."


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Totally out of context:
Did you ever read/see "Seven Days in May"? Or see the last 5 minutes of Frank Capra's "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington"? 

Yes but did you ever see "Bowling for Columbine" Dr. G? This is the true threat to the US.
Robert


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Robert, sadly, I have not seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine", but I hope that it wins the Oscar for best documentary. From what I have read of this film, it will begin discussions on topics that need open and honest discourse, both inside and outside of the classroom. We shall see.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy wrote:
*I assume it is even worse in MOO3?*

MoO3 is insanely complicated. Don't pick it up unless you've got a weekend or two to devote to figuring out how things work. Plus, once you've figured it out, you'll realize the AI is about as bright as a two-year-old. 

Of course, this is just what I've heard. I played the game for maybe two or three hours before I exchanged it for FreeLancer out of sheer frustration.

*Cheaper that way, plus I can get the software I need (IE Windows)..er.....inexpensively.*

I've found that buying a Dell is roughly the same cost as building a machine from parts, plus the warranty is usually better. The last machine I had was out of commission for a month and a half because the motherboard I bought died and the shop I was dealing with took forever to get a replacement in.

Grrr.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G.,
"Bowling for Columbine" should be required viewing for all students entering university in the U.S. and Canada.

Sort of like an English proficiency test.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, the reality of the educational system today would place such a movie outside of the "expected outcomes" of the curriculum. This is not to say that it should not be done, but that in many, many school boards across the country, this would be "out of bounds". Sadly, I see the curricula in many content area subjects (e.g., English, social studies, science, etc) being oriented towards objectified tests and test results, and that this quantification is the goal of education. Many of us are fighting this movement, from within the universities, the schools, the school boards, etc., but it is a difficult battle. Certain parents and politicians want quantified results, and since critical thinking cannot be acurately quantified, it is considered a "frill". 
I don't mean to paint such a bleak picture, since I have had teachers take many of my web courses from across the country, and they are dedicated and professional educators who strive to educate the affective as well as the cognitive "side" of each student. However, they report the "squeeze" to "get students to perform" well on tests, rather than to help students to think clearly and critically. 

Hopefully, many of you out there have far more optimistic tales to tell of the educational system in your area of Canada that would encourage a movie by MM to be shown as part of the curriculum. I am very much willing to be corrected on this matter.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*jfpoole wrote:
MoO3 is insanely complicated. Don't pick it up unless you've got a weekend or two to devote to figuring out how things work. Plus, once you've figured it out, you'll realize the AI is about as bright as a two-year-old.

Of course, this is just what I've heard. I played the game for maybe two or three hours before I exchanged it for FreeLancer out of sheer frustration.*

So it's only hard because it is so complicated? Is the AI as dumb as the AI in original MOO (which I still have on my iBook running in classic)?

Also, how is the full Freelancer? I have been playing the demo at work and really like it. How much bigger is the universe than the few scant systems you can explore in the demo?

*I've found that buying a Dell is roughly the same cost as building a machine from parts, plus the warranty is usually better. The last machine I had was out of commission for a month and a half because the motherboard I bought died and the shop I was dealing with took forever to get a replacement in.*

A valid point, OEM shops are brutal to deal with unless you know exactly what you want, right down to the model number. I guess what i will have to do is build a machine on Dell.ca and then compare the cost of parts and elbow grease.

Yes, I am considering a Dell. To all that would say something, get over it. I need a cheap PC, where else would you suggest I go (BESIDES WHERE I WORK!)

--PB


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy wrote:
*So it's only hard because it is so complicated? Is the AI as dumb as the AI in original MOO (which I still have on my iBook running in classic)?*

It's hard because it's complicated. I've no idea how hard the AI was in MoO (I've only played MoO2), but it's dumber than the AI in MoO2.

*Also, how is the full Freelancer? I have been playing the demo at work and really like it. How much bigger is the universe than the few scant systems you can explore in the demo?*

It's interesting and strangely addictive. The universe is big enough that travelling from one point to another can take a non-trivial amount of time. Last night I hauled a load of boron from Pittsburgh to LD-14 in Leeds and it took me a half hour to get there. Of course, now I've got an incredible ship, so it was worth it 

Plus, multiplayer is a lot of fun, and most of the people are quite pleasant. Lots of impromptu groups form in order to do cargo runs from one planet to the next, and I've seen very little (if any) PKing. 

*A valid point, OEM shops are brutal to deal with unless you know exactly what you want, right down to the model number.*

Even then, if you have a problem with the part, some shops will make your life a living hell if you try and get them to fix it (I've heard "It works for me!" more times than I'd like). Heck, even Compaq's better than that (I've got a Presario notebook that's basically a lemon, and Compaq's not given me any grief when I've tried to get it repaired).

*Edit:* Oh yeah, Dell cases are about the best PC cases that I've seen when it comes to maintenance. I think the only thing I need a screwdriver for in my Dimension 4500 is to put the mounting rails on a new hard drive.

Sweet!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*jfpoole said:
I've no idea how hard the AI was in MoO (I've only played MoO2), but it's dumber than the AI in MoO2.*

The AI in MOO is pretty dumb, but it is also copyright 1994 or so, it came out right after my dad bought our old PowerMac 6100/60.

*The universe [in freelancer] is big enough that travelling from one point to another can take a non-trivial amount of time. Last night I hauled a load of boron from Pittsburgh to LD-14 in Leeds and it took me a half hour to get there. Of course, now I've got an incredible ship, so it was worth it*

I noticed that in the demo. It took me almost 5 minutes to go from a system to the last waypoint of a mission once. Kind of strange (and cool) compared to a lot of other games these days.
I like the gate idea too, it's straight out of Cowboy Bebop (which is an Anime show for those who I just lost).

* if you have a problem with the part, some shops will make your life a living hell if you try and get them to fix it (I've heard "It works for me!" more times than I'd like)*

I never ask them to fix, i always ask them to replace. It takes a bit more arguing, but getting an OEM place to fix something is like getting Fire to be cold, it just doesnt happen.

You really like your dell dont you?

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think he really _does_ like that Dell a lot...and I think that he may just end up being the first ehmac citizen to reach 2000 posts. 

On a Dell.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy wrote:
*Kind of strange (and cool) compared to a lot of other games these days.*

It is; my only complaint is that it makes it hard to have a "quick game" of Freelancer; even if you pick up one mission the travel time back and forth can be quite large. Plus it's almost impossible to play just one mission 

*i always ask them to replace.*

Even replacing can be problematic. As I mentioned earlier, it took a month and a half to get a replacement motherboard back for my Athlon. After that incident I swore off OEM shops.

*You really like your dell dont you?*

I do! How could you tell?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macnutt wrote:
*I think he really does like that Dell a lot...and I think that he may just end up being the first ehmac citizen to reach 2000 posts.*

I think PosterBoy was talking about me and not Dr. G (although I could be wrong). I've no idea what Dr. G thinks about his Dell (I don't think he has any strong feelings one way or the other, though).

*On a Dell.*

I'm writing this post on a PowerBook (although some of my posts are made from Dell machines, yes).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...any chance that we can get back to the original subject of this thread?

Are those of you out there who are loudly opposed to Saddam's removal by force ready to be taken to task when the real truth about his despotic rule is fully known?

I am ready to admit that I am wrong, and it's "all about oil" or "revenge for daddy" if that's the way it turns out.

Are you?

Because we will know pretty shortly, that's for sure.

Ready to stand up and be counted for the strong opinions you have expressed? Ready to be scorned or redeemed?

I am.

And the time is just about upon us, my friends.

Prepare yourselves for the truth.

It can be quite a cruel master, indeed.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I was indeed talking about jfpoole and not the Doc.

I am ready to feel the wrath of truth, but then again I have been in the middle of the road on the subject for the most part. Not against the war, just the way it's being handled.

Oi.

jfpoole, if you ever want to check out MoO, let me know. It's abandonware now, so you can get it from a number of places, and it works just fine in Classic.

*It is; my only complaint is that it makes it hard to have a "quick game" of Freelancer; even if you pick up one mission the travel time back and forth can be quite large. Plus it's almost impossible to play just one mission*

Travel time is one thing, but what if you are knocked out of the tradeway (or whatever the gates are called, cant remember right now) and attacked? More time added! Still, looks like a really cool game, and I like the open-ended part of it too.

--PB

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My apologies to both jfpoole and posterboy. I admit to "skimming" that particular set of posts while trying to bring myself up to speed here at ehmac (I've been away).

The good Doctor runs a Dell, if I'm not mistaken, and I was somewhat taken aback to see that he was on the brink of blowing through the two thousand post barrier without actually using a Mac. I transposed this onto the PB/Jfp exchange. My bad.

So...getting back to the original subject of this thread....my opinions and viewpoints are all a part of public record here. I believe that this will be a very short conflict that will remove Saddam and result in a better world. Without any great loss of life, and I believe that mass-surrenders by demorlaised Iraqi soldierswill be the most notable part of this "war".

(the "wild card" here is if Saddam unleashes some sort of horror-weapon when he is attacked. If he does...then we will all know that we should have acted much sooner than this)

I also think that, once the truths are known, we will all come to realise that many more people would have died had we NOT taken this psychopath out of circulation once and for all.

And the "no war" crowd will, eventually come to be seen as naieve and ill-informed. To say the least. (counter productive and downright supportive of a murderous regime would be closer to the truth).

I stand by this, and await judgement by all who have read my posts on this subject.

Are the rest of you, who have fought so hard to convince all of us that removing Saddam by force is the wrong course of action, equally ready to stand up and defend your position on this, once all of the facts are known?

Because that is precisely what is coming. Quite shortly, I should imagine.

History is the great equaliser, and hindsight is always twenty-twenty vision.

Prepare yourselves.

I'm ready....are you?


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Macnut, after this short war of yours, who is going to be left with the clean up? Let me guess, the US? They have done such a great job in Afghanistan that I'm sure this will be no problem.
Also, are the Americans going to put their own ruler in power in Iraq? You realize they used to support Saddam, don't you. 
Yes it's about oil. The US is buying more oil now from Iraq than ever before. (and I mean right now-today) So don't think it does not have anything to do with oil.
I am prepared to find out the truth. Sadly though, the truth is already exposed. We as a species are doomed. In this day and age, to result to violence/war to solve our differences is a sad commentary on us.
You have gotten your way, via the US, by bullying others out of the way. I hope your ready for the consequences of openning padora's box.
Robert


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt typed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And the "no war" crowd will, eventually come to be seen as naieve and ill-informed. To say the least. *(counter productive and downright supportive of a murderous regime would be closer to the truth).* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not wanting war = "downright supportive of a murderous regime" ?????

"War is Peace"


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

macnutt wrote - "And the "no war" crowd will, eventually come to be seen as naieve and ill-informed. To say the least. (counter productive and downright supportive of a murderous regime would be closer to the truth)"

Shame on you for insinuating that I, and countless millions of others, are supporters of a murderous regime!

My stance remains I believe man should be smart enough to resolve world issues without war. Those that support this impending war are simply not part of the sufficiently evolved or educated population. I forgive them since they don't have a clearer view of reality.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Gee thanks macnutt, for yet again making things so simple and black and white. The end will justify the means. Heard it before from Hitler, Stalin, Hussein.... 

All I want to know is when will George W's crusade end? Since he seems incapable of seeing beyond the end of his nose, I am pretty sure he couldn't give anyone an answer. Like his father, he will not be able to finish what he started.

And I am weary of the repeated drone that being anti-invasion is equivalent to being pro-Hussein. It is beneath contempt.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy wrote:
*Travel time is one thing, but what if you are knocked out of the tradeway (or whatever the gates are called, cant remember right now) and attacked?*

If the tradeway (I think that's the correct term) is interrupted, then you've got a minute or so to kill before you can re-enter the 'way. Since I've been flying freighters, I don't try and get into a firefight; I just stall long enough for the 'way to re-activate so I can get outta there.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

McNutt etc..:
To be anti-war is to be anti COWARDICE ! 
Both the belligerents Saddam and Bush along with their supporter/handlers have not the mental skills to exercise diplomacy save the use of intimidation and bribery.
It looks like the former is the more clever (not a compliment) surrounded by morons and the latter a moron surrounded by the clever.
Do You Understand? ...Neither have socially functional brain power! This is what makes people kill. In Texas they execute such defficient people. Certainly, Saddam is a danger to his own society and until now Bush has been a danger only to himself.
Both are cowards as well as and especially those who passively support either in this Theatre of Mass Murder and Destruction.

The brain damaged Senator McCain is expecting to "persuade" us unwilling to go in and help clean up the carnage, help pay for and help satisfy US post-war and economic objectives:

"Let us wait until we have succeeded in Iraq," McCain said. "The best thing that can be done for the economy today is to win the war in Iraq quickly, completely, and to attract the coalition of partners necessary to help us meet our postwar objectives in that country." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49402-2003Mar18.html 

Can you say " attract"? Will they make the killing fields presentable? Is this not a nation become self-centered and delusionary in the extreme? 

You can be effing sure that these folk will be there: http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/mdc_team_5.html 

Does anyone here care to speculate on the fruits of the next G-8 Summit? 

It is being hosted by France.
http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index.php?page=news_inhalt&news_id=1704877&section=ch 
Troops for G-8 summit 

19.03.2003 - 12:28 
The Swiss parliament has approved the deployment of troops to guarantee security during a planned G-8 summit hosted by France near the Swiss border in June. 
The Senate followed the House of Representatives in endorsing a government proposal to send at least 5,600 troops to the area around Lake Geneva. 
However, parliament has still to ratify a treaty with France, which foresees financial contributions by France of up to SFr18 million ($13 million) for Switzerland's estimated costs of SFr40 million. 
The summit, which brings together the world's leading industrialized nations and Russia, coincides with a meeting of African leaders on the shores of Lake Geneva. 

WOW !
Some good thing they can spare the troops ....eh?


----------

