PDA

View Full Version : help the us



04blackMAX
04-01-2003, 06:43 PM
fuck our government sucks ass man...or fellow americans are over fighting a war and good ol jean has sent a total of 31 troups over hey whats that half our military, i cant belive the guys still in charge of this country....he should step up to the plate and help the us out....fuk iam bored

KoukiS14
04-01-2003, 06:52 PM
I was gonna argue this but have decided not too.

THREE40SEVEN
04-01-2003, 06:59 PM
Its took the US 3 years to join into ww2, so that buys us a little time;)

RiCE-DaDDy
04-01-2003, 07:06 PM
im not with bush, so im with saddam?? o shit!!

Fuji
04-01-2003, 07:25 PM
fuk Bush man...He is the biggest idiot yet. He has his own agenda and last time I checked no one elses interests except their own were on it.

Plus.... America Junior can't do anything anyways. I think we still have prop planes:(

04blackMAX
04-01-2003, 07:26 PM
so your for terrorism?????,,,,and having a physco with biological and chemical weapons???....i think he knows what hes doing man, there is alot we dont know about iam sure

redec
04-01-2003, 07:29 PM
that's bullshit...just because the US goes on a rampage we should join in too?....complete and utter bullshit....we're an independant country, not the 51st state....Canada as a country can have an opinion (and a conscience) of it's own....

04blackMAX
04-01-2003, 07:30 PM
just watch the reprocusions when its over though...u think the US is ok with us not helping out.....

redec
04-01-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by vsmSIR
so your for terrorism?????,,,,and having a physco with biological and chemical weapons???....i think he knows what hes doing man, there is alot we dont know about iam sure

that is so american of you....."you're not on our side, so you must be on their side"....firstly, what terrorist act was saddam behind? (don't give me this saddam and osama are affiliated bullshit).....secondly, there has been absolutly no evidence that they have biological/chemical weapons. The only bit of proof they have is that the soldiers had been supplied with chemical protection suits, which is hardly strong enough evidence to warrant attacking a country. You cannot attack a country based on what you THINK they have....whatever happened to the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? I guess that doesn't apply...it's OK to make up the rules as you go as long as you're the most powerful nation on earth. Don't get me wrong, I don't support saddam, and I do think he should be removed from power. However I think
a) A war is not the best way to accomplish this goal
b) The US is doing it for the wrong reasons (can you say 'oil')
c) The US does not have the ability to accomplish this goal. They will not find Saddam....they will abandon the Iraqi people, again...and then they'll find someone new to bomb to distract the american public from their military failure (case in point: Al Quada)
d) If the war was actually about freeing the people, why aren't they doing anything about the more brutal regimes in the world?...why do they just go after saddam?....could it be that none of the other regimes have anythign to offer the USA, and Iraq has shitloads of oil? I think so....it always comes down to money.

Bottom line. Women and children are dying in Iraq because bush is money hungry.

redec
04-01-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by vsmSIR
just watch the reprocusions when its over though...u think the US is ok with us not helping out.....

they're going to attack us next?....wouldn't doubt it....so that makes them better than saddam how?

Zephyr
04-01-2003, 07:46 PM
refer to sig:

"Canada?! Why must we leave America to visit America Jr.?!" -Homer Simpson

SoSlowDx
04-01-2003, 07:48 PM
GO USA!

Fuji
04-01-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by redec


that is so american of you....."you're not on our side, so you must be on their side"....firstly, what terrorist act was saddam behind? (don't give me this saddam and osama are affiliated bullshit).....secondly, there has been absolutly no evidence that they have biological/chemical weapons. The only bit of proof they have is that the soldiers had been supplied with chemical protection suits, which is hardly strong enough evidence to warrant attacking a country. You cannot attack a country based on what you THINK they have....whatever happened to the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? I guess that doesn't apply...it's OK to make up the rules as you go as long as you're the most powerful nation on earth. Don't get me wrong, I don't support saddam, and I do think he should be removed from power. However I think
a) A war is not the best way to accomplish this goal
b) The US is doing it for the wrong reasons (can you say 'oil')
c) The US does not have the ability to accomplish this goal. They will not find Saddam....they will abandon the Iraqi people, again...and then they'll find someone new to bomb to distract the american public from their military failure (case in point: Al Quada)
d) If the war was actually about freeing the people, why aren't they doing anything about the more brutal regimes in the world?...why do they just go after saddam?....could it be that none of the other regimes have anythign to offer the USA, and Iraq has shitloads of oil? I think so....it always comes down to money.

Bottom line. Women and children are dying in Iraq because bush is money hungry.

I totally agree with Redec here. The US is using Saddam as an excuse to show what will happen to people who attack them. This has nothing really to do with Saddam, but rather a precedent for future terrorists, not to mention Bush wants oil...

Fuji
04-01-2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by vsmSIR
just watch the reprocusions when its over though...u think the US is ok with us not helping out.....

Who said we were in the clear, I think we very well know the reprecussions that will occur after the war is ove. At the current state the US is boycotting CDN products. What a bunch of homos the US govt is. I am glad they are helping with the relief efforts but those dumb ass Americans just shot and kille a number of their own British allies.

Tell me the US know what they are doing? shooting at the wrong people even after the white flag came out and the convoy looked nothing like Iraqi tanks?


EDit: I am not ragging on Americans in general jsut the man in charge and his yes men who give bad orders.

Fuji
04-01-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by redec


they're going to attack us next?....wouldn't doubt it....so that makes them better than saddam how?

They are just going to use this incdident against us on other areas, such as trade, realtions, other wars etc.

SoSlowDx
04-01-2003, 07:58 PM
I don't know if I heard this wrong but Saddam and his sons tortures their own people, one of the brothers tried to kill his own brother to be next in line after Saddam. Plus didn't the US found a chemical plant just a while ago.

By removing I think the US is doing a good thing.

Fuji
04-01-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by vsmSIR
so your for terrorism?????,,,,and having a physco with biological and chemical weapons???....i think he knows what hes doing man, there is alot we dont know about iam sure

Yea there is a lot we don't know about it and a lot of the reasons are not all that valid. most of the reasons are for Bush to show American power, scare off terrorists, and increase his chances to stay in office after he wins. I agree they should disarm the chem and bio weapons, but it never had to get to this.

Saddam never had a chance and wasn't going to do anything anyways, he knew he would have gotten owned.

bigboom
04-01-2003, 07:59 PM
bush is jsut using this weapons of mass destruction as an excuse...he wants the oil and the money that would bring...he is scared of the power that OPEC holds in controlling oil price and oil ditribution. he needs to get into the middle east so he is using saddam as an excuse

that and he wants to show what will happen if terrorists attack the US

redec
04-01-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by SoSlowDx
I don't know if I heard this wrong but Saddam and his sons tortures their own people, one of the brothers tried to kill his own brother to be next in line after Saddam.


Yes this is true.....but do you honestly think that reducing the country to rubble will fix that?


Originally posted by SoSlowDx

Plus didn't the US found a chemical plant just a while ago.


To my knowledge, no this has not happened.

lammer
04-01-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by SoSlowDx
I don't know if I heard this wrong but Saddam and his sons tortures their own people, one of the brothers tried to kill his own brother to be next in line after Saddam. Plus didn't the US found a chemical plant just a while ago.

By removing I think the US is doing a good thing.

john you just don't want to pay alot of money for gas..

well hell who does? ahha

Zephyr
04-01-2003, 08:07 PM
if it can bring the gas prices down, then i'm for it!

SoSlowDx
04-01-2003, 08:10 PM
I'll take the good old City Transit !

Ahhh too many sides to it war sucks ...

speedracer
04-01-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by vsmSIR
so your for terrorism?????,,,,and having a physco with biological and chemical weapons???....i think he knows what hes doing man, there is alot we dont know about iam sure
So does that mean you'll never drive your car or use any products that come from oil since in some way it will be funding terrorism?

Canada is involved in many Peace missions. Do we abandon those principals? We may not have arsenals of weapons but they are there everyday at the front lines... Where and when do they get help?



... but those dumb ass Americans just shot and kille a number of their own British allies.
[/B]
Ouch :thumbsdow

Zephyr
04-01-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Fuji
but those dumb ass Americans just shot and kille a number of their own British allies. .

we also accidentally dropped a bomb on 4 canadian soliders in afgahnistan.... oops. sorry.

this debate is too hot to decide who is right. there are many factors, oil, stretching the american muscle, and the "crusaders to free iraq". This is what I think. Bush needed a scapegoat for the errors of preventing 9-11, so he pushed it on afgahnistan, and the results are no Osama. So to push his luck, he found a good reason "oh yea Saddam suppose to disarm 12 years ago" and then he "finds" links to Al Queda in Iraq. its all a matter of trying to get the public's blame to focus towards something else rather than on Bush himself, because in the future, historians will reflect on this, and i'm sure he doesn't want to be seen as the great moron (which he is already).

i mean herbert hoover is one of the far worst and supposidly "blamed for the depression" (although he was just elected on the wrong time), but hoover did humanitarian work to fight hunger and was highly acclaimed for that. look at Bush now, there were more death sentences under his term as governor in Texas, and the economy is sucking under him. he needs this "crusade" to alter his image.

Fuji
04-01-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Zephyr


we also accidentally dropped a bomb on 4 canadian soliders in afgahnistan.... oops. sorry.

this debate is too hot to decide who is right. there are many factors, oil, stretching the american muscle, and the "crusaders to free iraq". This is what I think. Bush needed a scapegoat for the errors of preventing 9-11, so he pushed it on afgahnistan, and the results are no Osama. So to push his luck, he found a good reason "oh yea Saddam suppose to disarm 12 years ago" and then he "finds" links to Al Queda in Iraq. its all a matter of trying to get the public's blame to focus towards something else rather than on Bush himself, because in the future, historians will reflect on this, and i'm sure he doesn't want to be seen as the great moron (which he is already).

Ha I couldn't have conveyed it better myself. And it's coming from a US citizen. Thanks Zeph :D

Zephyr
04-01-2003, 08:29 PM
and its stupid how hes blowing all this money! i'm the one to pay for it all in a few years! THAT BASTARD! homelan security is a bunch bullshit. its like a fucking redlight. "OH NO, ITS ORANGE! LET ME GO GET THE DUCT TAPE!" wtf is this, so much money for a color coded bingo board...

Fuji
04-01-2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Zephyr
and its stupid how hes blowing all this money! i'm the one to pay for it all in a few years! THAT BASTARD! homelan security is a bunch bullshit. its like a fucking redlight. "OH NO, ITS ORANGE! LET ME GO GET THE DUCT TAPE!" wtf is this, so much money for a color coded bingo board...

BWHAHAHAA... is that a member fo FINKL as your avatar... they ar hot!!!:drool:

Zephyr
04-01-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Fuji


BWHAHAHAA... is that a member fo FINKL as your avatar... they ar hot!!!:drool:

Hyori Lee.... finially someone got it! SHES SUPER HOT! :drool:

ok back to the subject. oh man the government thinks the public is so dam stupid that it needs a color system. "ok ppl, its red, go grab ur gas mask (that wont help) and put duct tape all over the openings in ur body, u know why, CUZ ITS FUCKING RED!" argh i hate the government officials, dumber than toast.

Altezza
04-01-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Fuji


BWHAHAHAA... is that a member fo FINKL as your avatar... they ar hot!!!:drool:

It's Hyori...ask your GF...oh wait, you'd get in trouble!

Fuji
04-01-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Altezza


It's Hyori...ask your GF...oh wait, you'd get in trouble!

shaddup man!!!!:rofl: Park ji yoon looks hot sometimes and a couple of the chicks on Kiss are hot too.

Altezza
04-01-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Fuji


shaddup man!!!!:rofl: Park ji yoon looks hot sometimes and a couple of the chicks on Kiss are hot too.

:rofl: Yikes, getting totally off-topic...but Park Ji Yoon is hot in her 'Adult Ceremony' video. She's one of those who has the hot-not-hot-not cycles. Kim Hee Sun...now there's a hot Korean!

But in terms of the US Gov't...I always wondered WTF was going on in their minds for everything they did. I'd better start investing in 3M...demand for duct tape should remain strong for a while. :D

Seanith
04-01-2003, 09:58 PM
This middle eastern shit is just a moderne day crusade. The crusades in the middle ages weren't sucessful, so why will this one be? I agree, even if the us troops take over baghdad, fuckface will be long gone. They might find 5 of his "doppelgangers" though :rofl:

sexualbanana
04-01-2003, 10:14 PM
There's a lot of reasons Bush is in this war against Aaddam.

1.) The current US economy is in a recession. Remember what happened in the 1930's and what brought the world out of the depression, WWII.

2.) Bush is simply using the attacks of 9/11 to fuel the fears of americans of another terrorist attack. He's been under attack from a lot of analysts and media for this point.

Now, there is a main reason why Bush Jr. wants Saddam so badly. #2 ties into the next one very well.

During both the Reagan and Bush Sr's administrations in the late 80's, their foreign policies involved building up Iraq's military power (which consequently encourage Iraq's aggression). The reason they did this was because they wanted to use Iraq to contain the Islamic revolution that was happening in Iran which threatened other Western regimes in the Mid-East. When Reagan took Iraq off their list of states that sponsor terrorism, it allowed the US to resume trading with Iraq. From 1984 to approx. 1990, the US supplied Iraq with billions of dollars in weapons and aid. All the while, they were overlooking Iraq's gross violations of human rights.
Also during the 80's Americans supplied Iraqi's with advanced technology, wewapons and aid, as well as intelligence on Iran. Somewhere during that time, Congress demanded that the US sever it's relations with Iraq pointing out that the regime used biological weapons on it's Kurdish population. The White House rejected Congress' demands and called Hussein a liberator.

sexualbanana
04-01-2003, 10:19 PM
Now, between 1985 and 1990 the White House approved 771 licenses to export over $1.5 billion in advanced equipment and technology to Iraq, most of it with direct military applications.
It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait that the White House put Iraq back on the list of countries that supported terrorism.
Reagan and Bush thought it could moderate Iraq's behaviour by appeasing Hussein with technology, weapons and trade. Instead, by building up Iraq's military it strengthened a monster that eventually turned against them.

So I think this war isn't just about oil. I think it has a lot to do with Bush Jr. getting some sort of revenge against Hussein for turning on his father which embrassed not only America's foreign policy, but Jr's dad.

And that, boys and girls is my super long history lesson for today.

Redlyne_mr2
04-01-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by redec


that is so american of you....."you're not on our side, so you must be on their side"....firstly, what terrorist act was saddam behind? (don't give me this saddam and osama are affiliated bullshit).....secondly, there has been absolutly no evidence that they have biological/chemical weapons. The only bit of proof they have is that the soldiers had been supplied with chemical protection suits, which is hardly strong enough evidence to warrant attacking a country. You cannot attack a country based on what you THINK they have....whatever happened to the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? I guess that doesn't apply...it's OK to make up the rules as you go as long as you're the most powerful nation on earth. Don't get me wrong, I don't support saddam, and I do think he should be removed from power. However I think
a) A war is not the best way to accomplish this goal
b) The US is doing it for the wrong reasons (can you say 'oil')
c) The US does not have the ability to accomplish this goal. They will not find Saddam....they will abandon the Iraqi people, again...and then they'll find someone new to bomb to distract the american public from their military failure (case in point: Al Quada)
d) If the war was actually about freeing the people, why aren't they doing anything about the more brutal regimes in the world?...why do they just go after saddam?....could it be that none of the other regimes have anythign to offer the USA, and Iraq has shitloads of oil? I think so....it always comes down to money.

Bottom line. Women and children are dying in Iraq because bush is money hungry.
Extremely well put...and the americans wonder why they are the victims of terrorist attacks..if anyone is a moron its that fat ass drunk of a premier that we have, he was in Red Deer friday night at jackpot casino playing 3 card poker and wasting away his life...fuck Klein is a joke

THREE40SEVEN
04-01-2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by sexualbanana
There's a lot of reasons Bush is in this war against Aaddam.

1.) The current US economy is in a recession. Remember what happened in the 1930's and what brought the world out of the depression, WWII.

2.) Bush is simply using the attacks of 9/11 to fuel the fears of americans of another terrorist attack. He's been under attack from a lot of analysts and media for this point.

Now, there is a main reason why Bush Jr. wants Saddam so badly. #2 ties into the next one very well.

During both the Reagan and Bush Sr's administrations in the late 80's, their foreign policies involved building up Iraq's military power (which consequently encourage Iraq's aggression). The reason they did this was because they wanted to use Iraq to contain the Islamic revolution that was happening in Iran which threatened other Western regimes in the Mid-East. When Reagan took Iraq off their list of states that sponsor terrorism, it allowed the US to resume trading with Iraq. From 1984 to approx. 1990, the US supplied Iraq with billions of dollars in weapons and aid. All the while, they were overlooking Iraq's gross violations of human rights.
Also during the 80's Americans supplied Iraqi's with advanced technology, wewapons and aid, as well as intelligence on Iran. Somewhere during that time, Congress demanded that the US sever it's relations with Iraq pointing out that the regime used biological weapons on it's Kurdish population. The White House rejected Congress' demands and called Hussein a liberator.

Originally posted by sexualbanana
Now, between 1985 and 1990 the White House approved 771 licenses to export over $1.5 billion in advanced equipment and technology to Iraq, most of it with direct military applications.
It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait that the White House put Iraq back on the list of countries that supported terrorism.
Reagan and Bush thought it could moderate Iraq's behaviour by appeasing Hussein with technology, weapons and trade. Instead, by building up Iraq's military it strengthened a monster that eventually turned against them.

So I think this war isn't just about oil. I think it has a lot to do with Bush Jr. getting some sort of revenge against Hussein for turning on his father which embrassed not only America's foreign policy, but Jr's dad.

And that, boys and girls is my super long history lesson for today.
Exactly. So why are canadians EXPECTED to help with the disarming of a dictator that they put into power and armed. US forign policy sucks ass, and so do the people hate us as canadians for not backing their bullshit government.

Weapon_R
04-01-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by SoSlowDx
I don't know if I heard this wrong but Saddam and his sons tortures their own people, one of the brothers tried to kill his own brother to be next in line after Saddam. Plus didn't the US found a chemical plant just a while ago.

By removing I think the US is doing a good thing.

You are correct!

Did you also know that the Iraqis were massing their troops along the Saudi Border in 1990 in readiness to invade Saudi Arabia?

I'm also sure that you've heard of the invading Iraqi soldiers that threw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators when they entered Kuwait in 1990?

Oh wait...those didn't happen either. The lying U.S. government made those stories up too. Be prepared to find CNN footage of Iraqi chemical plants too! VX tipped warheads! And anthrax laboratories! I'm sure the U.S. will "find" them as soon as some more people speak against the war...

...too bad they were caught and forced to admit it in front of the world...

lammer
04-01-2003, 11:25 PM
bush jr wants to finsh his daddys job!!!!! :D

max_boost
04-01-2003, 11:43 PM
Ahh....the war is too complicated for me....I read history books, I read the newspapers, I watch CNN, I watch NBC, I listen to profs, I listen to friends, what the hell am I suppose to believe?!?!

Anyway, it is one thing seeing it on TV, it is another thing actually experiencing it. My parents were in Vietnam when the U.S attacked, they use to watch airplanes fly over them and hear bombs! Now as if that ain't freaky!

I don't like American foreign policy, I don't like military dictatorships.....I think world is crazy and war is no surprise to me!

ConVict
04-01-2003, 11:53 PM
Its a proven fact, biological warfare is not that dangerous! All the weapons saddam is thought of having, the US have vaccinations for. You see how many people died when anthrax was in a couple letters... only the people that opened them, and 1 or 2 other people got sick. I guy with a hand gun can do more frickon damage running down the street.
Bush is using stupid ass excuses just like everyone has pointed out. Why doesnt he go after countrys with nuclear bombs that starve and threaten their people with death to stay in power... Bush is either scared of REAL opposition, or wants the oil. You can pick which one :thumbsdow

sexualbanana
04-02-2003, 12:02 AM
also at the same time, if a biological weapon does go off, vaccinations or not, the widespread panic that it can create is something to be avoided.

second of all, old school shit like mustard gas as well as some of the deadlier stuff (i'm sure there are, but i don't know of any) i'm sure work so fast there's no time to vaccinate

SI-vic
04-02-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by max_boost
My parents were in Vietnam when the U.S attacked, they use to watch airplanes fly over them and hear bombs! Now as if that ain't freaky!

I don't like military dictatorships....

My parents also, oh man the stories that my parents tell me are horriffic and scary. I'm just glad that we arent living in a place where there is War.

I also do not like dictatorships.... I would hate to lose my freedoms and rights.....

ConVict
04-02-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by sexualbanana
also at the same time, if a biological weapon does go off, vaccinations or not, the widespread panic that it can create is something to be avoided.

second of all, old school shit like mustard gas as well as some of the deadlier stuff (i'm sure there are, but i don't know of any) i'm sure work so fast there's no time to vaccinate

well in WW1 when they used the stuff... you could see it coming from miles away, but if you got out of your trench you would be shot in the back running away from it... Think about how many canisters they used to do that... I have seen pictures and read documents... it took hundreds apon hundreds. you think they can just ship that over, in a big ol box and let it go and people wont run away... sure it might kill a couple people that stand there and go coooollll yellow air.... but I am a lot more scared of a nuke that fries you in .1 of a second then something you can piss on a rag and get away scot free with ?!?!
Panic is for stupid people who dont know what they are doing, nuff said !

the weapons saddam has are dangerous dont get me wrong, but people who are so far away dont have a problem. He would honestly need a football field of chemical war fare to go off in a VERY populated place ( which is never going to happen ) to create anywhere close to as many deaths as one nuclear bomb the size of a briefcase..... you see what i am saying yet ?

boi-alien
04-02-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by SoSlowDx
I don't know if I heard this wrong but Saddam and his sons tortures their own people, one of the brothers tried to kill his own brother to be next in line after Saddam. Plus didn't the US found a chemical plant just a while ago.

By removing I think the US is doing a good thing. be that it may be true that they torture their own people and whatnot, but honestly, there are many other more oppressive regimes out there. not only that, is any of the USs business? it's their country's internal affairs, a good example is this, what if i came into our house and kicked your ass and said i don't like the way you take your shits? it's the same thing the bush is butting into Iraq's internal afairs. here's another example, if Quebec wanted to seperate and they asked the americans for help in the seperation of Quebec so the americans come into canada and help quebec seperate, how would you feel about that? it's our contry's business the US has no say and should take no part in it. another thing, i'd like to add, they call this operation Iraqi freedom... did the Iraqi's EVER ask for help?! did they ask the be "liberated"?

I just pray to God that this Iraqi war doesn't turn out like the Vietnam war. you know what happened then, NOTHING!!! all those american soldiers died in Vietnam, and nothing's changed. And the US keeps claiming that the Iraqi's have weapons of mass destruction, where are they? I personally haven't seen any. and you know if saddam was such a crazy bastard he woulda used them by now, shit, if someone came into my home and was intent on killing me, i'd throw everything i got at them. but that's just me.

I just don't agree with this war whatsoever. This war could easily be ANY other country in the world. Bush just made an excuse to go attack Iraq, he could easily make an excuse and attack China, Japan, or even Canada. If one day our government decides we don't need the US for protection anymore, and we start massing our own armies and whatnot, what do you think will happen? and what's the point of having the UN? the UN is the biggest bullshit excuse of an organisation, I mean, no matter what the UN said, yes or not, Bush went and attacked... so what's the point of having such an organization?

sexualbanana
04-02-2003, 12:22 AM
but there's also things that may not lead to death, but still fuck u up for life.

remember what doctors called the persian gulf syndrome? soldiers exposed to bio/chem weapons in the first gulf war are now all sterile, balding, etc

Fuji
04-02-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by sexualbanana
but there's also things that may not lead to death, but still fuck u up for life.

remember what doctors called the persian gulf syndrome? soldiers exposed to bio/chem weapons in the first gulf war are now all sterile, balding, etc

That could have been attributed to many other factors Post traumatic stress disorder.. male pattern baldness, standing too close to the microwave... :dunno:

point is Saddam does have biological weapons, which may be quite dangerous. All the guy had to do was start something like SARS???? coincidence it showed up after the war huh??

Bush was right in trying to disarm him, however I think he was unreasonable and had his own agenda rather than what was put out to the general public.

sexualbanana
04-02-2003, 12:37 AM
i just think it was unreasonable in rushing through the preparation and everything. if they could have produced any concrete evidence to convince the UN and such that it was justifiable and gain more support that's cool. but the fact that they pushed ahead so fast with no real support besides the UK, the us now has to deal with the UN when they're done

Fuji
04-02-2003, 12:40 AM
And we have to deal with the US when they are done. :(

sexualbanana
04-02-2003, 12:43 AM
i personally think canada did the right thing. 1.) canada doesn't even come close to having any type of resources to be the aggressor. 2.) since canada stood up for itself, it shows that canada isn't the US' bitch

szw
04-02-2003, 01:05 AM
The thing about biological weapons not being that bad...well yea, the examples you made don't sound so bad.

I don't know anything about modern biological weapons...but is it hard to believe that much more deadly, fast moving, and undetectable weapons could be created?

Something that could be thrown into the water supply and what not...anyways not sure if the weapons are at that point yet...but I do'nt think they (biological weapons) should just be disregarded like that.

Ed the SOHC
04-02-2003, 02:38 AM
I agree with redec. The americans are in the wrong with this war. I'm glad Canada isn't a part of this war. Bush wants the oil. If he cared about human rights then there still would be US soldiers in Somalia.

James
04-02-2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by sexualbanana
i personally think canada did the right thing. 1.) canada doesn't even come close to having any type of resources to be the aggressor. 2.) since canada stood up for itself, it shows that canada isn't the US' bitch


:werd:.....good points, at this point, Canada joining the war effort would be pretty useless....... Personally im trying to pay as little attention as possible to whats going on with the war, and its pretty Hard considering every day the paper/t.v. is littered with whats happening...... I am not an advocate of war, alot of inocent poeple are dying/suffering etc.., and i dont want to hear about that.....And there is nothing i can personally do to change anything thats going on in the middle east, so i'll just sit at home watching simpsons re-runs and Sportscentre.

B17a
04-02-2003, 08:17 AM
Just an observation but all these peaceniks keep rambling off this "no blood for oil" rhetoric. But if it was just about gaining a new supply of oil, I'm no fucking professor but they could have spent a hell of a lot less than $75 billion sending an army half way across the world and just overrun Canada here. Am I wrong? If it was just about oil, that would have been the most logical solution, easy access, little to no defence, weak and useless gov't. It would have been a cake walk. Not that I'm a flag waving supporter, but to the US's defence, when Canadian peace keepers were taken hostage (and abused) by the Serbs in the 90's, our neighbors to the south were Johnny on the Spot helping to rescue them. Not quite on the same scale as invading a whole country but just a point.

mwmhong
04-02-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by redec


they're going to attack us next?....wouldn't doubt it....so that makes them better than saddam how?

You are wrong, the US will 'liberate' us. :rolleyes:
Operation Canadian Freedom! :clap:


Originally posted by Fuji

That could have been attributed to many other factors Post traumatic stress disorder.. male pattern baldness, standing too close to the microwave... :dunno:

point is Saddam does have biological weapons, which may be quite dangerous. All the guy had to do was start something like SARS???? coincidence it showed up after the war huh??


It is believed that it might be experimental anthrax vaccines they were injected with and/or the depleted uranium rounds they were using in the Gulf War.

And I think that SARS thing started in November of last year, the Chinese government covered it up because it would hurt the tourism industry.

======

Who knows if it is just the oil, Iraq is a strategically good place in the middle east to take over.

Look at a map, if the US takes over Iraq, they have Iran surrounded from both sides because they have forces in Afghanistan too. A good launching point for taking over other middle eastern countires, it's in the middle of everything. :devil:

Oil reserves, money for american contractors at the expense of taxpayers, strategic military positioning--->more US bullying/influence/control in the Middle East---->even more oil

Maybe the US leaves North Korea alone because it will keep China's attention occupied while they get more territory and regional control, then they can have well-positioned military ready to deal with China if/when the time comes around.
A show of force.

American Global Leadership through superior military power!
PNAC (http://newamericancentury.org)

Toms-Celica
04-02-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by redec
that's bullshit...just because the US goes on a rampage we should join in too?....complete and utter bullshit....we're an independant country, not the 51st state....Canada as a country can have an opinion (and a conscience) of it's own....


With are military the way it is, we aren't very independant :thumbsdow

sexualbanana
04-02-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Toms-Celica



With are military the way it is, we aren't very independant :thumbsdow

with the internet and increased trading, no country is very independent anymore

Toms-Celica
04-02-2003, 10:42 AM
Im talking from physical threat...if you think about it, if something were to happen here, who would be the first of our allies to come and help?

All Im saying is I with Canada had a proper military to support mainland defense as well as contribute to UN missions.

redec
04-02-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Toms-Celica



With are military the way it is, we aren't very independant :thumbsdow

bullshit.....are you under the impression that you need a strong military to be independant? most of the countries on earth don't even have a military....just because we're next door to the largest military doesn't mean we're any less of an independant country. And besides....what exactly do we need a military for?.....we have no enemies...we don't bully the rest of the world....the only reason someone would want to take over canada is so they have a good place to attack the US from...

redec
04-02-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Toms-Celica
...as well as contribute to UN missions.

are you aware that the war in Iraq is not a UN mission? The UN supported the disarmament of Iraq, not the fall of the regime and the 'freedom of the Iraqi people'. This is a US-only thing....making enemies....and americans wonder why they're such terrorist targets.

B17a
04-02-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by redec


just because we're next door to the largest military doesn't mean we're any less of an independant country. And besides....what exactly do we need a military for?.....we have no enemies...we don't bully the rest of the world

You know what the irony here is? With Cretien's incompetent cast of characters (the Liberal MP's) and their continuous public name-calling and anti-American slanders, our new "enemy" is going to be trying to do political and economic business with them in the future. Some will argue that we're independent and those comments are a matter of free speech, which they are, but calling them "bastards" and whatnot is pretty childish for politicians at a Federal level and not professional at all.:thumbsdow I guarantee you the softwood lumber and wheat issues will now move even more slowly then ever.

MerfBall
04-02-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by vsmSIR
fuck our government sucks ass man...or fellow americans are over fighting a war and good ol jean has sent a total of 31 troups over hey whats that half our military, i cant belive the guys still in charge of this country....he should step up to the plate and help the us out....fuk iam bored

This is from Paul Cellucci's speech to the Economic Club of Toronto on March 25, 2003.

"But Canada remains a crucial partner in this global war on terrorism, and we are grateful for that. Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and military personnel continue anti-terrorist operations in the Persian Gulf. Canada is preparing to play a major role in the continued stability and security of Afghanistan through ISAF. This summer Canada will deploy a battle group to Afghanistan for a 12-month period.

...

Ironically, the Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel in the Persian Gulf I mentioned earlier who are fighting terrorism will provide more support indirectly to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there. "

Its not that Canada doesn't support the US. Canada doesn't support the US's decision to go to war without the UN's approval.


Originally posted by sexualbanana

1.) The current US economy is in a recession. Remember what happened in the 1930's and what brought the world out of the depression, WWII.


The economy of North America was on it's way out of recession until 9/11, that impeded recovery for awhile, but was well on its way again. Hence the increase and/or freeze to the interest rate by both US Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada. But neither dropped it any furthur.


Originally posted by ConVict
Its a proven fact, biological warfare is not that dangerous! All the weapons saddam is thought of having, the US have vaccinations for.

I'd like to see that proof. A vaccination is preventative, once it's been used it may not be curable. And a chemical bomb going off, I assure the danger of chemical/biological warfare is very real and no amount of drugs can be used to cure and may not even be curable depending on what chemicals they have developed.



Originally posted by ConVict


well in WW1 when they used the stuff... you could see it coming from miles away, but if you got out of your trench you would be shot in the back running away from it... Think about how many canisters they used to do that... I have seen pictures and read documents... it took hundreds apon hundreds. you think they can just ship that over, in a big ol box and let it go and people wont run away... sure it might kill a couple people that stand there and go coooollll yellow air.... but I am a lot more scared of a nuke that fries you in .1 of a second then something you can piss on a rag and get away scot free with ?!?!
Panic is for stupid people who dont know what they are doing, nuff said !

the weapons saddam has are dangerous dont get me wrong, but people who are so far away dont have a problem. He would honestly need a football field of chemical war fare to go off in a VERY populated place ( which is never going to happen ) to create anywhere close to as many deaths as one nuclear bomb the size of a briefcase..... you see what i am saying yet ?

LOL, You are comparing technology that is almost a century old to modern day technology??? If it is possible for a nuclear weapon to be used as a long range missle as ICBMs of the past were used, it is not too terribly difficult to launch one from one of the less scrupulous countries.

Remember no one would ever have thought that a jetliner would be used as a guided missle either, who knows what these people can come up with.


Originally posted by Fuji

point is Saddam does have biological weapons, which may be quite dangerous. All the guy had to do was start something like SARS???? coincidence it showed up after the war huh??


Its this kind of thinking that creates mass hysteria. If the SARS is a direct use by some terrorist cell or Iraq, then why would they start the outbreak in China??? A country that is opposed to the war and the only superpower that could rival the US in military might?

I'm drawn on the war. Although I think knocking Saddam Hussein out of power is definitely a good thing, I do think Bush's intentions was definitely the oil. But then, going in without UN support is extremely dangerous and will definitely have a long term effect of the UN's credibility and authority. Canada not "directly" supporting the US and in turn supporting the UN is definitely a good thing.

MerfBall
04-02-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Toms-Celica
Im talking from physical threat...if you think about it, if something were to happen here, who would be the first of our allies to come and help?

All Im saying is I with Canada had a proper military to support mainland defense as well as contribute to UN missions.

Actually the Canadian Military is extremely well trained. The only problem with the Canadian Military is that it is ill-equiped. In many war game exercises that have been carried out by the British, Canadian, and American at CFB Wainright, the Canadians usually come out over the americans with the British spanking us. At CFB Cold Lake they hold wargame exercises between the americans and canadian air forces much like Red Flag in Nevada. And the Candians also do quite well against the americans.

And if you are talking about the first to come to our aid, yes the US would be there, but the UK would be there probably well in advance of the US.

And to add to that, it is the decisions like staying out of the Iraqi war that keeps Canada from being a target of physical threat. If you think of the biggest reason Canada would ever come under risk of attack it would probably be the way into the US.

redec
04-02-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by B17a
If it was just about oil, that would have been the most logical solution, easy access, little to no defence, weak and useless gov't. It would have been a cake walk.

true....however...they also have no excuse. It wouldn't be US vs Canada....it would be US vs Canada/UN.

lammer
04-02-2003, 02:45 PM
but then again, if sometihng were to happen in the US right now like mad riots and shit with terrorist attacks, canada would probably help out, then jean creiten and be like "yes, we knew this would happen so we pretended to not care about Iraq" heh

hjr
04-02-2003, 02:51 PM
canada cant afford a war. we are at alert level toape and it would cost too much to move it too sea-foam green. Plus, we helped in the first one, well actully we did mess duty cause our army sucks.

but ya, im against raising the alert level to sea-foam green.

ZorroAMG
04-02-2003, 10:07 PM
I could not agree more with Redec and Fuji...

You see we are blinded by the American flag and its propaganda, telling us what to think and that everyone should be with the "most powerful nation on earth" Most are affraid to disagree with the US and I think it is our decision to make wether or not we enter into war. The US would not hesitate to eat us alive if they felt it would help them...case in point with the boycott of Canadian products...

Being Lebanese-Canadian and knowing about both cultures and beliefs, i still want Saddam dead but at what expense?? He had nothing to do with sept 11 (at least there is no proof) so unfortunately the US is wrong in their pusuits of this modern-day Hitler..

Bush Sr used the Gulf War to help the economy and now his pain in the ass son is trying the same thing...Who do you think demanded all (95%) of the reconstruction contracts in Kuwait before they went in?? The US of course...

Alterior motives abound in this world issue and the Arab world problems will sadly, outlive us all :(

sexualbanana
04-02-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by ConVict

Panic is for stupid people who dont know what they are doing, nuff said !



a person is smart.
people are dumb, idiotic and panicky

Toms-Celica
04-02-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by hjr
canada cant afford a war. we are at alert level toape and it would cost too much to move it too sea-foam green. Plus, we helped in the first one, well actully we did mess duty cause our army sucks.

but ya, im against raising the alert level to sea-foam green.


hahahahaha!

Toms-Celica
04-02-2003, 10:57 PM
Oh, and for those people who don't watch the news, there are Canadian troops fighting in Iraq as we speak. They are on a Canadian/United States trade program. Turns out if they get caught by the Iraquies the Canadians are classifed as 'Forced Combatants' and don't fall under the UN genevia convention. At this point, if one gets caught, it will be a big eye opener to the world. :rolleyes:

Toms-Celica
04-02-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by redec


are you aware that the war in Iraq is not a UN mission? The UN supported the disarmament of Iraq, not the fall of the regime and the 'freedom of the Iraqi people'. This is a US-only thing....making enemies....and americans wonder why they're such terrorist targets.

Are you aware that there is more then just the Iraq conflict going on in this world? Internal documents from the Canadian Military have clearly stated, that due to the fact of their lack of equipment and technologie they cannot perform duties given to them by the UN. Example would be the three Canadian Military ships operating a 'Operation Apollo'. Between the three ships, they have one claped out Sea King, talk about supporting UN! I can continue with many examples of ill-equiped Canadian Military stories if you wish...

God bless this government! :rolleyes:

Toms-Celica
04-02-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by sexualbanana
i personally think canada did the right thing. 1.) canada doesn't even come close to having any type of resources to be the aggressor. 2.) since canada stood up for itself, it shows that canada isn't the US' bitch

With that thinking, I hope something big happens here in Canada where we don't have the proper equipment to deal with the problem and when Canada asks America for assistance they reply 'no' showing that they aren't Canada's bitch either.
(Example would be the ice storm that hit Ontario/Quebec a few years back, American military were asked to give help with the clean up)

Weapon_R
04-03-2003, 12:08 AM
Everyone here constantly talks about Canada's military like it's the worst one in the world...

Here's a newsflash for everyone. ITS NOT. We rank as one of the top 10 military spenders in the world. We have some of the most advanced planes, tanks and other equipment. Canadian troops are some of the best in the world.

The reason we are criticized is that the Navy is weak, and the military is small compared to the land mass that Canada occupies.

For those who believe the U.S. will punish Canada severly for not helping during the war - you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. [b]NEEDS[/i] Canada for their national security. During the mid 90s, the U.S. was sucking Canada's dick for cooperation in NORAD so they'd have early warning on the only front they can't really monitor (they can monitor the Pacific in case an attack happens from the West Coast), but it's harder to defend if an attack occurs from Canada.

hjr
04-03-2003, 01:14 AM
economically we BOTH rely on each other. That will probably never change. There just isnt a way for the US to get cheaper raw materials, and for Canada to get finished goods. So were stuck with each other. Thats probably not tooo bad a thing though.

Toms-Celica
04-03-2003, 09:22 AM
'Here's a newsflash for everyone. ITS NOT. We rank as one of the top 10 military spenders in the world. We have some of the most advanced planes, tanks and other equipment. Canadian troops are some of the best in the world.'

Sure about that? Last I heard we were in the bottom 3 of countries in the UN.

B17a
04-03-2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Toms-Celica
'Here's a newsflash for everyone. ITS NOT. We rank as one of the top 10 military spenders in the world. We have some of the most advanced planes, tanks and other equipment. Canadian troops are some of the best in the world.'

Sure about that? Last I heard we were in the bottom 3 of countries in the UN.

I think its based on a per capita basis, not gross dollars.

redec
04-03-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Weapon_R
Everyone here constantly talks about Canada's military like it's the worst one in the world...

Here's a newsflash for everyone. ITS NOT. We rank as one of the top 10 military spenders in the world. We have some of the most advanced planes, tanks and other equipment. Canadian troops are some of the best in the world.

The reason we are criticized is that the Navy is weak, and the military is small compared to the land mass that Canada occupies.

For those who believe the U.S. will punish Canada severly for not helping during the war - you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. [b]NEEDS[/i] Canada for their national security. During the mid 90s, the U.S. was sucking Canada's dick for cooperation in NORAD so they'd have early warning on the only front they can't really monitor (they can monitor the Pacific in case an attack happens from the West Coast), but it's harder to defend if an attack occurs from Canada.

:werd:

not to mention in the topgun competitions (the fighter pilot wargames) the Canadians consistently spank the americans :P

B17a
04-03-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by redec


:werd:

not to mention in the topgun competitions (the fighter pilot wargames) the Canadians consistently spank the americans :P

True dat, but most recently the Canadian snipers in Afghanistan showed why they won so many of those Marine Corp. competitions.:guns: :guns:

mwmhong
04-03-2003, 10:15 AM
This girl I used to work with had a BF in the Canadian military. She says the Canadian troops learn EVERYTHING and are more well-rounded than the equivalent American troops.

In America, each guy does only one role (eg. load the artillery), like mass-production so if one member of your group goes down and there is no one to replace him, your effectiveness goes down big-time. She also said that American troops come up to Canada to train because the training is better. :confused:

In the words of Professor Holger Herwig at the U of C (Military Strategy prof.):
"Canada is a third-world military power." :thumbsdow

Canada's military is geared towards peacekeeping in foreign countries, and that is what they do.
Canada relies upon it's alliances with more powerful nations (US/UK) for heavy protection.

sexualbanana
04-03-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Toms-Celica


With that thinking, I hope something big happens here in Canada where we don't have the proper equipment to deal with the problem and when Canada asks America for assistance they reply 'no' showing that they aren't Canada's bitch either.
(Example would be the ice storm that hit Ontario/Quebec a few years back, American military were asked to give help with the clean up)

canada's objection to the war against iraq is not for personal reasons!!

i for example, support the idea of getting rid of hussein (like the rest of the world). what i object to is the US doing it without UN support as well as the rest of the 1st world countries' support.

they're my objections, but i think canada feels the same way. if the UN had approved it, canada would be all up in it

Glowrider
04-03-2003, 10:35 AM
It's ok. We can handle it just fine over here :) Thanks anyways.

hjr
04-03-2003, 11:59 AM
ha ha ha. i wondered when you were gonna jump in here.

Ok, now were up too aqua alert status!!!

redec
04-03-2003, 02:48 PM
http://www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html

great article...

Toms-Celica
04-03-2003, 09:18 PM
http://www.opsick.com/


Check that out, then talk to me

Kanok8
04-03-2003, 09:28 PM
The only help we need is choosing a better president...and teaching people in Florida how to count.
:werd: