Errr... Canadians...

[MURACU]

...Despite the fact taking out a head of state is not allowed under US law... You forget the US helping, both financially and with training, all the countries around the world that had insurgent/terrorist/rebel problems...

Tigershark: Taking out a head of state is only not allowed under US law if it fails. As for the rest the US and Canada like any country will act on what is in its best interests. Dont forget before 9/11 the US was just as likely to be helping insurgents and rebelles as it would have been to be condeming them. It just depended on who they were rebelling against.

but no, I do not think that the USA is the pinnacle of morality... The Brits are.

thats true you can't beat a Brit for being pompous

[preacherman481]

No human being is a pinnacle of morality.

[Tiger Shark]

Striek:

The world's problems will be solved together, not by any one contry acting alone, as the US did (crap I hate to bring THAT war up again) in Iraq. So long as the world fears that the US will act alone, there is little incentive to push these reforms to pass. The US is unique in its responsibility to help these reforms come to exist, and nobody is seeing that happen.

This goes back to the UN... You have children? How many times do you tell your child to do something before you chose to punish? How many times was Saddam told to do something? Do you think he sat there in fear of the possible retribution of the UN? Did he hell... In fact, if you think back carefully the US, Britain et al gave Saddam 48 hours to step down and leave Iraq... Did he? Nope!!! There was only one course of action remaining...

For those of you still thinking americans were lied to about WMD's you know damned well that he had them because he used them against Iran and he used them against the Kurds. So, if you know your kids have drugs in their room and have used them before but they do everything they can to prevent you properly searching for them do you just give up? Of course not... You remove them from the room so that you can search properly... The fact that you find nothing after all the time it took to get into the room doesn't mean they were never there... Why? Because we knew in the first place that he had them and was prepared to use them... because he already had done in the past.

I would love to continue this discussion, but please leave the below-the-belt attacks out of it. We can have a mature argument, even a heated argument, without schoolyard insults

I guess the at the end of my hockey comment doesn't mean the same in Canada as it does to the rest of the world....

Dalek:

The Falklands was an act of War by a soveriegn nation (Argentina) against another(UK)

I remember watching the second aircraft hit the WTC in real time... The _first_ thought that crossed my mind was "This is an act of war".... It doesn't matter where the act originates it plainly and simply is an act of war. By your logic terrorists should not be hunted down and killed because when they commit an atrocity on you territory you can't react because they aren't a sovereign territory... Can you say "free pass"... 'Cos that's what you give them with that attitude...

The Iron Lady wanted help from Rayguns, but he stood pat, like most US presidents do, unless it suits them...so get off that one TS...

I'll let you decide... I remember it well... I was preparing to jump onto Port Stanley Airport at the time... Using the int that was asked for and provided by the USA...

The Falklands war of 1982 was regarded by most people in the defence and intelligence establishments as a textbook example of Britain's 'special relationship' with the USA in action. The Americans had made certain advanced weapons available to the British and had shared vital intelligence about the location of Argentine ground and naval forces.

In Cheltenham, though, there were people who knew that this assistance had sometimes required special pleading. The National Security Agency, GCHQ's US counterpart, had not achieved global coverage with its sigint satellites by 1982. The craft which was in a position to help Britain monitor Argentine communications was being used by the Reagan administration to eavesdrop on central America, principally El Salvador. One of the GCHQ officers who liaised with NSA recalls, 'We had to negotiate very hard to get it moved, and then only for limited periods.' During these spells of a few hours each, the satellite's listening dish was reorientated towards the south Atlantic in order to help Cheltenham. The NSA did not monitor the downlinked take during these periods, asking GCHQ to alert them if there was anything of US interest in the transmissions.

Although GCHQ was grateful for NSA's help, and learnt a good deal from the occasional use of its satellite, the senior officers in Cheltenham, notably the then Director, Brian Tovey, drew certain conclusions. As one former GCHQ officer says, 'We can ask the Americans to do things, but we cannot compel them. There may be targets they don't want to cover. The Falklands was a factor here. It brought going it alone back into fashion.' It was already apparent to GCHQ management that space represented the future of sigint and that gaining a British foothold in such technology might be possible, given the Prime Minister's largesse towards the agencies.

Source

Seems to me that they gave what they could, when they could bearing in mind they had a need for the same piece of equipment at the same time....

Also as to being attacked by a foreign entity aka terrorists not from America, what about McVeigh and his militia types that are spread throughout the US, probably some living close to you TS, Michigan has a few of these people running around..

Last time I checked Mr. McVeigh is stiffer than a frigging board and probably completely rotted by now... His compatriot is still trying to avoid a death sentence but has a life sentence already... IIRC... As to the Michigan Militia... You are joking aren't you old chap... I have seen their videos... A bunch of pot bellied, middle aged nincum****s with, possibly, 10 IQ points between ten of them... I'll tell you honestly, I'd be quite happy to go up against any 10 of them in the woods... It would be a Turkey shoot.... Literally!!!

Muracu:

It just depended on who they were rebelling against.

History is written by the winner. Thus, the traitors that turned against the king and declared independence in the new world are known today as Americans. Had the King won they would have been terrorists to this day...

Preacher:

No human being is a pinnacle of morality.

There is no morality without humanity...

[RoadClosed]

homeless Mexicans out.

Is that the new politically correct term, considering "undocumented worker" doesn't hold up anymore?

Tiger, that's a big ol' pot.

[dalek]

By your logic terrorists should not be hunted down and killed because when they commit an atrocity on you territory you can't react because they aren't a sovereign territory... Can you say "free pass"... 'Cos that's what you give them with that attitude...

No you can ask for cooperation from the rest of the planet to hunt these murderers down or do what the Mossad did with Arafats boys from the 72 Olympics...

Geezus by your logic, every time a bomb went off in the UK thanks to paddy and his boys the UK had every right to declare war on Dublin right? or when the Basque's would blow up innocent Spaniards the Government could declare war on that part of the country that is sympathetic to their cause...how about when American servicemen (spooks) went into Cambodia to conduct ops, why didn't the Cambodians declare war on the US....

Can you say "free pass"... 'Cos that's what you give them with that attitude

Attitude...so my "attitude" is that if it were up to me I would allow all of these murderer's off, is that what you are trying to say?


You know TS...it is rather funny that for an Ex-Pat you sure sound American, chest must hurt after all that thumping...you must think that the WTC was fillled with just Americans eh!

You remove them from the room so that you can search properly... The fact that you find nothing after all the time it took to get into the room doesn't mean they were never there.

Best piece of fiction I have read in awhile...sort of well if she drowns then she was innocent, but if she hadn't of drowned she would certainly be a witch...lol...that's the American way..bust the door down, shoot anything that moves, then go oops wrong address, sorry folks bad intelligence, we will just excuse ourselves now...

hhmm I wonder who sold the Iraqi's the nerve gas....

Details about Iraq killing Iranians with US-supplied chemical and biological weapons significantly deepens our understanding of the current hypocrisy. It began with "Iraq-gate" -- when US policy makers, financiers, arms-suppliers and makers, made massive profits from sales to Iraq of myriad chemical, biological, conventional weapons, and the equipment to make nuclear weapons. Reporter Russ Baker noted, for example, that, "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor." This was just the tip of a mountain of scandals.

Source

communications was being used by the Reagan administration to eavesdrop on central America, principally El Salvador

yep ensuring the US led Contra's were able to keep on fighting was more important

[Striek]

The fact that you find nothing after all the time it took to get into the room doesn't mean they were never there... Why? Because we knew in the first place that he had them and was prepared to use them... because he already had done in the past.

I distictly remeber Rumsfelt stating, mostly because he made this statement on my birthday, that not only did the US havi reliable intelligence that Saddam had WMD's, but also that they new where the were.

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

source
This statement was clearly designed to create a false sense of security in the knowledge that the location of the WMD's was known. SO... either they were never there, or you lost them. Personally, I'd rather believe the former.

The whole purpose of invading Iraq was to remove the threat posed by these weapons. Seeing as how you haven't found them yet, I'd say that so far, that mission objective is a total failure. But... I do recall saying that I agreed with the invasion on principle. Nukes or not, Saddam was a threat to world stability, especially in a region so rich in oil (whether the US wanted the oil is another debate for another thread... we're too off track already... the world could not afford that level of uncertainty in that strategic a location, and it's worth killing for that). He was a murderer, tyrant, megalomaniac, and ruled his people with no regards for civil liberties. That alone is justification enough for a war in my opinion. I did not need the WMD's to justify it for me. Besides which, you're playing with the big boys now. The stakes go up just a tad when you invade somebody and kill thier children (intentionally or otherwise, they're still dead). You invaded. You stated your reasons. That places the burden of proof upon you. The world is still waitng for the weapons.

Telling us that proof of prior possesion is proof of current possesion is a fellacious argument. One does not prove the other. Everybody knows he used the weapons on the Kurds, and personally I have seen that argument used way too many times. It has long outlived its usefulness. I find it entirely credible that he dismantled the mass destruction program after realizing the risk of invasion over them was too great. I don't care what he had in 1989. Show me what he had in 2003.

Yeah, the invasion is a tricky bit to munch on. I agree it was justified. I don't agree with the false pretenses and the deception. I agree with the US that the UN was taking too long to act. I don't agree that they had any right to act without world support. So long as any one nation acts without the support of the rest of us, we will never be united for a better Earth.

But I guess the lines get blurry when nukes come into the picture. The risk factor is off the scale. Now this is a tough belief to hold, but I'd rather see New York (or Toronto, yes, I would sacrifice myself for this philosophy) get wiped off the map, and have the world act as one in response, than have the US act alone.

I also remember watching the attacks. I dropped my cereal bowl on the floor. I didn't care. I will remeber that moment like my parents remember JFK. When the Pentagon was attacked, having never before witnessed an attack like this, nor prepared for the possibility, I thought it was the start of the Third World War. The Afghan invasion, relatively small in comparison, was great relief. It was an act of war indeed, and had it precipitated into the Third World War, I would have enlisted. An attack on one if an attack on us all, or so the saying goes.

It was, unfortunately, used as a pretext for far too many curtailments of American civil liberties, and ours as well. But somehow ours don't seem to have been clipped nearly as much (at least legally). Acutally, as we speak, laws are being debated in parliament to provide more oversight for the use of these newfound powers. And need I remind you, we are the only industrialized nation to ever declare martial law (not officially martial law, but close enough to be called it) nation-wide. All Canadian civil liberties were suspended. source
We know what it means to be forced to take those actions. We also know the value in not taking them.

But back to the original point the thread started with...

We did not, for one second, believe that we were exempt from hatred and terrorism. We stand by our allies, even if it means the risk of terrorist attacks. The thought that people believe we could be so naive is insulting, despite the fact that we cannot understand why people would attack a country which opposed the invasion in the first place.

[Tedob1]

Originally posted here by Evil Moo
Personally, I think Canada is a dream of a nation to be neighbors with. Stable government, high standard of living, nearly identical culture, same language (except for those crazy Frenchies in Quebec), etc, etc. I can stomach a "holier than thou" attitude from a "little brother" .

I certainly hope that Canada would have less crime, more effective judicial oversight, protection of civil liberties, less occurances of government abuse of power. Look at their population! Canada has alot of the same problems, but they are nowohere near the scale of the US.

"My government is broken, fix it."
"My people are starving, feed them."
"My countrymen are killing eachother, save us."
"My country is being invaded, fight for me."
"My people/country is poor, give me your money."
"My people have AIDs, cure it."
"You're rich and powerful; I'm not--therefore I hate you."
"You're not doing enough to benefit me, I demand more."

Forget about your own massive country with a matching population with tons of their own problems, I want more, more, MORE! I can't remember the last time I heard those kinds of demands on Canada..heh..not even the UN.

I certainly hope Canada has better handlings of domestic policy--all things considered. They're like the Swiss, they basically have no foreign involvement other than a CARE package every so often by comparison. The tite is running dry, and the isolationist in me is awakening.

woa, I digressed rather quickly. Sorry for the rant, I'm just alittle frustrated with the whole nation thing.

i couldn't agree more!

HT said a few months ago why he loved canada, how people would help each other out in a jam.

it used to be that way here. it really did HT, i remember winters as a boy. we lived in an innner city on a steep hill and every now and then we'd hear wheels spinning, look out the window and see a car stuck in a snow bank. my father would grab his coat so i grabded mine we went out side and two or three other families would also come out. every one got the cars out of the snow pile and helped push the car and keep it in the right direction all the way up the hill, nobody new who these people were we just wanted to help out. i trully believe that liberal thinking has killed that in my part of the land. crime filled our streets as criminals rights was pushed beyond the limit and the tying of the cops hands finished it. welfare houseing units were placed in nice neighborhoods, junkies filled the streets and a house or two was broken in to everynight. it became so if you tried to help a stranger you really might get shot. now i live in a 'better' neighborhood but i make sure i leave one car door unlocked so i dont come out to find my window broken again. dont let that happen in canada. it is a beautiful place.

[Tedob1]

Originally posted here by Striek
I distictly remeber Rumsfelt stating, mostly because he made this statement on my birthday, that not only did the US havi reliable intelligence that Saddam had WMD's, but also that they new where the were. source
This statement was clearly designed to create a false sense of security in the knowledge that the location of the WMD's was known. SO... either they were never there, or you lost them. Personally, I'd rather believe the former.

Striek

there is proof that he had, was planning to have used and what happened to them, along with his connection with al-quida and his terrorist plans against the west in the thousands of tapes and documents that have been uncovered in bagdad.

http://www.odni.gov/

http://70.168.46.200/

who says there's a liberal media bias (me)

[RoadClosed]

Translated documents started trickling out of Baghdad about 10 months ago. There are literally buildings full of untranslated documents yet to be reviewed. With Saddam and his party cronies own signatures and words . The media is VERY selective. These are mostly available through freedom of information and published reports so "they" know how to get them. But its more FUN to print death and destruction especially when an opportunity arises to discredit and discrace. Not Al (towelhead) Zakari, but US Marines.