We are at War

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:27 pm

Originally posted by Nightmare
Earlier in the week, the US ambassador to Canada enforced the whole "Either with us or against us" rhetoric, when he made a speech to Canadians, saying that The White House was furious with Canada and that there might be economic reprocussions (which will be devestating to us).

Niiiiiiiiiiice!! What, we're going to go after Canada now? Nice move, government. Wrecking friendly relations with a right-next-door country. Is this administration completely suicidal?!?!

IMO, the real threat to the national security is the current government itself. Lately I think the whole crew actually WANTS global instability.

I fear for the world at large when this country is run by such arrogant, bullying jackasses.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:44 pm

this article recently appeared in a BC newspaper...
I had not posted it earlier for fear of provoking sensitivities.. but in this context it seems relevant...

“Chilly U.S. relations are about more than Iraq,” says Paul Ramsey

--27 March 2003

Beware the American rogue elephant

As the military dismantling of the Iraq regime began last week, British Columbia media broadcast story after story about delays in cross-boarder trade and U.S. indifference to resolving the softwood lumber dispute. Some speculated that Canada would be punished for refusing to join the “coalition of the willing,” or because a former Chrétien aide called President Bush a “moron.”

However, Bush has been called far worse things by editors of major U.S. newspapers—let alone American anti-war protestors. And compared to the French and German finger-in-the-eye response to the U.S. request for help, Canada’s quiet and principled “no thank you” was a model of diplomatic tact.

Canada’s relations with the United States are indeed entering a new and perhaps nastier phase, but that has far more to do with changes in the United States’ own view of its role in the global economy and international politics than with any cross-border irritant.

The Bush administration’s decision to forgo United Nations endorsement for its Iraq invasion was a demonstration of its new National Security Strategy. That strategy, announced last September, said that the United States had a right to act unilaterally and, more significantly, peremptorily when it felt threatened.

The thuggish brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime has been obvious for decades, but the U.S. failed to convince the United Nations and the world that Iraq posed an imminent danger. In spite of the lack of evidence, the U.S. asserted that it was threatened and went to war.

This rejection of international diplomacy and multilateral decision-making reflects the Bush administration’s actions in other areas. It tore up the treaty with Russia that banned anti-ballistic missile systems and re-activated Ronald Reagan’s “star wars” initiative. It withdrew support for the new International Criminal Court and demanded that U.S. citizens be immune from the court’s actions.

The United States is also pulling back from multilateral activity in other areas. It has all but scuttled negotiations to expand both trade and protection for workers’ rights and the environment. It has refused to sign on to the Kyoto agreement, even though it has no alternative proposal for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Victory in the Iraq conflict will reinforce the Bush administration’s belief that it need not respect world opinion or international agreements. Cynics might even say that the U.S. purposely sabotaged the United Nations’ efforts to avert war just to demonstrate its distain for the U.N.

None of this is good news for British Columbia. Our largest trading partner is increasingly asserting that, unless international agreements and processes support its interests, it will not adhere to them. Faced with such an attitude, relying on NAFTA or the WTO to protect B.C.’s position in the softwood lumber dispute is leaning on a very slender reed.

The B.C. government has already recognized this and is radically changing its forest policies to appease U.S. interests. But even though Victoria seems willing to have many aspects of its forest policy written in Washington, D.C., it hasn’t yet gone far enough to suit America.

The United States is also pushing for increased say over other Canadian resources. The Bush administration is already working on a “continental” energy strategy—written by and for the U.S. interests. After lumber and energy, can assertions of cross-border rights to water be far behind?

Pressure on Canada to import other U.S. policies will also increase. Canadians see their publicly funded and run health system as a way of providing citizens with assured and equitable care. U.S. providers of health services see it as an untapped market which comprises nearly 10% of Canada’s GDP. They want a piece of the action.

Pierre Trudeau memorably compared the Canada-U.S. relationship to a mouse and an elephant sharing a common bed. Well, the big beast wants all the blankets for itself these days, and the mouse is going to have to get a lot more assertive if it wants any part of the bed to itself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Ramsey is a former MLA and Cabinet Minister. He now teaches at CNC and is a Visiting Professor in the Political Science Program at UNBC.

great....

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:53 pm

Already, I believe, the border crossing is hurting us as it is slowing down for US "security reasons". The United States buys about 38% of our GDP...and we only buy 3% of the US's.

I've been studying this lately in my business class, and a possible outcome for this could be that we could gain some commerce elsewhere, such as the EU and China, where we haven't had much trade because of our closeness and dependence on the US. This could be good for us...but in the meantime, reduced trade with the US is gonna be bad.

My business teacher had something to say about that Elephant and Mouse analogy...the mouse can always try to move to another bed.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:09 pm

Please note, I dipped into this thread and merely wish people to check their logic before they post. Think about.

GDP:

At a snap, something like

USA - US$9.3 trillion
Canada - US$774 billion

Don't trust me, get your own figures.

Now, at those persentages, that makes

2.79E+11
2.9412E+11

So what's the diference?!

Second, US alienate Canada? What about all the remarks Chretien has made? What about booing at a hockey match? Every situation has cause and effect. Perceptions will always differ. Don't post here and assume you are right.

Finally. What good is trade when fanatics slam jet planes into your tall buildings? I ask you, what price are you willing to pay?

Lastly. Whiskey is good for you when you have a cold.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:29 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
So what's the diference?!

Second, US alienate Canada? What about all the remarks Chretien has made? What about booing at a hockey match? Every situation has cause and effect. Perceptions will always differ. Don't post here and assume you are right.

The difference is that that money makes much more of a difference to our economy then it does to the US.

Now, I tend to agree with you about Chretien. Since he's retiring, he really doesn't care about the future, and he's only looking to build himself a legacy (like Kyoto, but I'm glad he signed it). But, not supporting the war is really the general consensus in Canada. Many, many people here are against the war. IMO, he's just following what the people want by not supporting the war.

Also, tensions run high at hockey games. I agree though, that booing should not have happened. Its not respectful at all.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:52 pm

Yes I'm drunk, but you have to be careful what you say - the figures make it look like "holy crap! 38% of our econeomy!" When in real terms its the same amount, though admitedly, more hurtful to Canada if it evaporated.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:55 pm

Might become worse, @Grunt. Remember, Bush placed tariffs on a range of goods from Western Europe, claiming that this was to protect American businesses. (This, from the man who repeatedly demands that other nations open their markets more to US goods because "the free market is the only way to go.") All the nations involved invoked a series of far-ranging punitive tariffs on American imports in reply, and the WTC just ruled recently that the US was wrong. (The World Trade Court is one international body that even Bush respects, because it has a laser-guided missile that hits nations in their wallets.) It imposed a hefty fine on the US, which is scrambling for some formula that will save face.

Nor is this the only such instance of tariffs and threats of economic boycotts. There have been dozens issued to various nations over the least several months, used as a means of attempting coercion over the Iraqi invasion. Problem is, if all of these threats are enforced, the US will end up being hurt very badly, perhaps as badly as the other nations involved; since offsetting the economic powerhouse of the US would be the enormous bill for the war (70-90 billion dollars seems to be the figure most are going with these days), and the fact that other nations will keep trading with one another while the US lashes out and ceases to trade with quite a few.

In reality, I think Bush will rein in his pitbull Rumsfeldt, and nothing will be done about those threats. They're a sideshow, designed to make the US look "tough," just as Chretien tries to look "tough." Somebody should tell both Bush and Chretien that they just look damn silly.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:17 pm

The New Carpetbaggers...

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/Arti ... H/TPFocus/

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 2:38 pm

@ DW:..It is amazing is it not? In many ways the Southern US has never truly recovered from the 'Carpet Baggers'. The carpet baggers taht I am refering to of course are a bit more heinous. They came down and bought up the properties and businesses from desperate Southerners who could no longer support themselves after the heavy taxes and penalties were levied against them by Washington. (We whipped you, now you're going to pay for it.) The Southern planter, farmer and business owner could not support himself and the US government too. The industrial North was poised and ready to take advantage of the destruction of the Southern economy. The US government was all too eager to put 'Friendly Interests' in charge of rebuilding the South. What occurred was far from reconstruction, and much more resembled financial rape and plunder. I hope time does not repeat itself.

Here is an editorial from Fortune magazine on some of the hidden costs of the war.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 3:02 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
@ DW:..It is amazing is it not? In many ways the Southern US has never truly recovered from the 'Carpet Baggers'. The carpet baggers taht I am refering to of course are a bit more heinous. They came down and bought up the properties and businesses from desperate Southerners who could no longer support themselves after the heavy taxes and penalties were levied against them by Washington. (We whipped you, now you're going to pay for it.) The Southern planter, farmer and business owner could not support himself and the US government too. The industrial North was poised and ready to take advantage of the destruction of the Southern economy. The US government was all too eager to put 'Friendly Interests' in charge of rebuilding the South. What occurred was far from reconstruction, and much more resembled financial rape and plunder. I hope time does not repeat itself.

Here is an editorial from Fortune magazine on some of the hidden costs of the war.

Good article made more disturbing in that it was written at the very beginning of the war with the assumption that the war would be over in days. Obviously, all the things that could go wrong (in the article) are going wrong.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:50 pm

Has anyone learned more about the Silkworm Missile that Iraq fire on Kuwait with Friday? It would seem that Bush was at least right about this much, Saddam was not cooperating fully with the fact finding delegation from the UN.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:06 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
Has anyone learned more about the Silkworm Missile that Iraq fire on Kuwait with Friday? It would seem that Bush was at least right about this much, Saddam was not cooperating fully with the fact finding delegation from the UN.

To be honest, I think Hussein would have to be braindead *not* to keep some "weaponsofmassdestruction," considering his neighbors. He's got Turkey, which has never liked him; Iran, which has been a perennial foe of Iraq; Israel, which launched a preemptive strike at a facility the Israeli government claimed was developing nuclear weapons; and the US, across the border in Kuwait.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:27 pm

Originally posted by fable
To be honest, I think Hussein would have to be braindead *not* to keep some "weaponsofmassdestruction," considering his neighbors. He's got Turkey, which has never liked him; Iran, which has been a perennial foe of Iraq; Israel, which launched a preemptive strike at a facility the Israeli government claimed was developing nuclear weapons; and the US, across the border in Kuwait.

You know, I hate to say it, but I agree with you.
It was never my point of contention that Iraq had these weapons. I think defense is a first priority responsibility of a government to its citizens. The thing that always bothered me, was the lack of disclosure. I would not expect Saddam to give every detail of his military machine to the inspectors, but I think much of the wind would have been sucked out of the sails of this war had he been up front and said to the UN, "Yes, I have these. They are for national defense, Would you like to see them?" I think if their had been transparency and disclosure this may have been avoided. Of course, I could be wrong, but we will never know, now.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:33 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
It was never my point of contention that Iraq had these weapons. I think defense is a first priority responsibility of a government to its citizens. The thing that always bothered me, was the lack of disclosure. I would not expect Saddam to give every detail of his military machine to the inspectors, but I think much of the wind would have been sucked out of the sails of this war had he been up front and said to the UN, "Yes, I have these. They are for national defense, Would you like to see them?" I think if their had been transparency and disclosure this may have been avoided. Of course, I could be wrong, but we will never know, now.

Good point, sweetheart. I wonder about that as well. The Middle East is such a hotbed of unrest, I develop a headache pondering the complexities of it all...

I can no more understand the actions and statements of Saddam Hussein than I could those of Col. Moammar Quaddafi of Libya back in the 80's. Ripe with contradictions, I generally don't trust any statements I hear issuing forth from Baghdad, as I know quite a few of them (in the past) to be nothing but fabrications. It becomes difficult to see through the fog...

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:06 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
I would not expect Saddam to give every detail of his military machine to the inspectors, but I think much of the wind would have been sucked out of the sails of this war had he been up front and said to the UN, "Yes, I have these. They are for national defense, Would you like to see them?" I think if their had been transparency and disclosure this may have been avoided. Of course, I could be wrong, but we will never know, now.

I absolutely agree with you, but governments almost never admit such things. Hussein could no more agree to it than the SC would have accepted such an admission. I can hear the US Ambassador, now: "Iraq says they are withholding 10 Skuds from destruction for protection. Who do they need to be protected from? No one is threatening them! It is THEY who have etc, etc."

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 2:51 pm

Perhaps a clue

According to the Washington Post, Captain Ronny Johnson, who was in charge of the checkpoint, blamed his own troops for ignoring orders to fire a warning shot.
"You just ****ing killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!", he reportedly yelled at them.
In another checkpoint incident this morning, US forces say they killed an unarmed Iraqi driver outside Shatra.

The Guardian further reports that the British journalist Robert Fisk has found a metal fragment at the Bagdad market where various Western sources report over 6p people were killed last Friday. The metal fragment carried the mark "MFR 96214 09" which according to the Guardian is a manufacturer's identification number known as a "cage code". Cage codes can be looked up on the internet [url]http://www.gidm.dlis.dla.mil,[/url] and keying in the number 96214 traces the fragment back to a plant in McKinney, Texas, owned by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon, whose headquarters are in Lexington, Massachusetts, aspires "to be the most admired defence and aerospace systems supplier through world-class people and technology", according to its website (http://www.raytheon.com). It makes a vast array of military equipment, including the AGM-129 cruise missile which is launched from B-52 bombers. Thus this may indeed be an indication that the explosion was caused by a US cruise missile and not an Iraqi anti-aircraft rocket as the US has suggested.

The full Guardian article is here

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:08 pm

According to the Washington Post, Captain Ronny Johnson, who was in charge of the checkpoint, blamed his own troops for ignoring orders to fire a warning shot.
"You just ****ing killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!", he reportedly yelled at them.
In another checkpoint incident this morning, US forces say they killed an unarmed Iraqi driver outside Shatra.

Can you blame them. If I was a 18 year old kid from kentucky who just heard about a suicide bomber killing four Americans, then see a car ignoring orders driving towards you. Its war, this is not something that should be looked upon like those soldiers are evil men. The Iraqi military and those who fight with them are the ones willingly and happily putting those civilians lives on the line. You notice how Iraq continually posts the civilian death count (most likely exaggerated) yet they wont post thier military loss. And the person who supposedly found that piece of shrapnel. You show me a picture and I'll be a little more happy, seems to me that would be one awsome piece to get before anyone else....

Its all propaghanda. I doubt that Marine even said that...

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:24 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
The Iraqi military and those who fight with them are the ones willingly and happily putting those civilians lives on the line.

Hello, whose nation has just been invaded? The claims to moral superiority are coming from the invading governments, who have yet to make up a satisfactory case for going in, and who have already arranged access to the oil concessions of Iraq. Hussein doesn't have anything to prove. The US and UK administrations do, and they've done a lousy job of justifying themselves. They don't need to prove that Hussein is a dictator. They need to prove unambiguously altruistic reasons for invading another nation, such that they will be shown to be completely consonant with international law and good will.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:26 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
Can you blame them. If I was a 18 year old kid from kentucky who just heard about a suicide bomber killing four Americans, then see a car ignoring orders driving towards you.

Yes I could - not the soldiers but the decision makers. An 18-year old kid shouldn't be standing at a checkpoint in an area where suicide bombings just happened, and the Iraqi has said there will be more of that.

I have no idea if this reports reflect reality correctly or not, it is what Washington post and the Guardian have written. Maybe WP are lying, as you suggest, I have no idea.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 5:00 pm

Yes I could - not the soldiers but the decision makers. An 18-year old kid shouldn't be standing at a checkpoint in an area where suicide bombings just happened, and the Iraqi has said there will be more of that.

Alright I will forgive myself for making the "kid" a victim too. He is a soldier fighting a war, if everytime someone killed an American soldier or two we backed out... well we'd loose.

You dont fight wars to loose. Those drivers shouldn't have driven up like they did, not the soldier shouldn't be there. It is in my honest opinion that part of the increase in wave of protest is (THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU) the fact the majority of people today are so damn scared to step on toes they just wanna ***** without giving solutions and just blaming someone that is easy to point fingers at.

Now how this relates, you claim the decision makers. Well the decision makers were the soldiers to shoot, the general who put them into position, the president for declaring war, the citizens for electing him.

If those soldiers were ****ing around and not paying attention then on command to fire a warning they blew the hell outa them. They should be in trouble, but not in the sense of murderers. It is my opinion that Saddam knew from day one that building military structures were civilians were, putting soldiers stationed in civilian areas, would be murdering all of them when war would break out. No one is carrying signs "Elite Republican Gaurd uses civilians as shields". Because thier the victims and no one wants to be looked upon as evil or mean. But this big bad old man who wants nothing but oil, lets blame him "The decision maker" because it makes us feel better about the fact that we arn't to blame.

People are dying in Iraq because of Hussiens Regime. No matter how you say that its true. Also because I helped elect President Bush by voting for the Green party thus in theory taking a vote from Gore.

Am I to blame?

I am sorry if I come off like a prick but the fact is all I see everywhere are protesters without a mind (SYM being the only contrast). I know so many girls who dont know anything about the war yet walked in protest against it, to some thats nothing to me thats blatent ignorance. Its an insult to the soldiers there. I have friends and family who may or may not DIE before this damn thing is over and if I have to look at some 19 year old college kid hold up a picture of Bush dressed like a nazi one more time Im going to sit that little sob down and ask some questions, if he cant give me the right answers I dont know what I'd do...

We are at war, protesting now only brings down morale.

Once again I'll probably edit this cause I am not in the best state of mind to argue politics.