Acura MDX SUV Forums banner

So, what do YOU think about the 'situation' with Iraq?? A.K.A. Canada v. the US

  • Unilateral determination

    Votes: 39 31.7%
  • Start war in 1 month regardless of findings

    Votes: 26 21.1%
  • Give inspectors more time/Increase number of inspectors then act regardless of UN position

    Votes: 14 11.4%
  • War ONLY with UN Security Council approval

    Votes: 23 18.7%
  • "Absolutely nuthin'..." (War is not the solution)

    Votes: 21 17.1%

  • Total voters
    123
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 528 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So what do YOU think?

From one of my post-9/11 posts:

A week before the Battle of Gettysburg, and following endless months of brother-on-brother Civil War bloodshed, Robert E. Lee issued a directive to his troops that included the following:

"It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain..."

Quoted from "Stars in Their Courses," a book on the Gettysburg campaign written by Shelby Foote.

Lee was religious. I am not. The sentiment is timeless.

-Traveller
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
We just hope it does not lead to WWW III.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
War is never good!

The US (being the most poweful nation on the planet) carry an enormous international responsibility and unfortunately cannot win a popularity contest:

1. If it goes to war, many countries will criticize the decision.

2. If it look the other and Irak turns out to be the evil that many suspects and starts a middle east conflict with neighbors, the same countries will again complain that the US should have intervene.

When Hitler was increasing his control over Germany, the British Prime Minister made an agreement with him hoping to avert war.
WWII lasted 6 years and cost over 40 millions lives.

Let us hope that Saddam Hussein, in front of the US resolve, abdicates and gets lost... thus avoiding more casualties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Been there, done that! Soviet Army in Afganistan - thousands of lost lives for nothing! Thousands of tragedies for no good! Doesn't solve anything, unless you are protecting your homeland.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
all-is-1

each human being, each and every living thing on earth is interdependent and interrelated. each action affects everyone in one form or another.

each human being, each and every living thing on earth is but one small part of the whole-God's creation-the cosmic order.

we MUST realize that we are all brothers and sisters, that when one feels pain we should all feel pain.

when we realize that "all-is-1"...war will be unnecessary.

chris

celebrate life!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,138 Posts
I hope it can be resolved without war, but if it can't I hope junior cleans up for what his daddy should have never walked away from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,474 Posts
Reminds me of a song from the 60's. Can't remeber who sang it but it was a Viet Nam war protest song.

If a was comes to be let's all hope it is over fast and not many lives are lost. I am of the opinion that doing nothing may be the worst of all options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
818 Posts
Re: Re: War... what is it good for?

BaldEagle said:
Reminds me of a song from the 60's. Can't remeber who sang it but it was a Viet Nam war protest song.

If a was comes to be let's all hope it is over fast and not many lives are lost. I am of the opinion that doing nothing may be the worst of all options.
1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
next stop is Vietnam
and its 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why
whoppi were all gonna die

Country Joe McDonald and the Fish
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,266 Posts
Hi All:

___A few scenarios I hope we will never face … What if Iraq had an H2 bomb in 1990? Do you think Kuwait would be a sovereign nation? Do you think Saudi Arabia would be a sovereign nation today? Who would you rather have ruling Kuwait and Saudi, Saddam or the current non-expansionist regimes? What would the world look like today? How about 10 years from now when Iraq does own a few H2 weapons? How many US soldiers are going to die in the first nuclear exchange? In fact, Saddam will light the damn things off on the ground in Baghdad as the 7th Corps is rounding the last turn into the city and kill his own innocent civilians rather than be taken … The US knows this, the French, German’s, Chinese, and Russians know this, the Iraqi people know this, and the Muslim world knows this. So lets all stand ideally by and let him develop a few just to see what will happen … His son is just as murderous as he is if anyone has ever read up on that [email protected]@rd! It’s a bad scenario all around to think of this Ego-maniac owning a weapon(s) like this back than, now, or anytime in the future and he will if the UN sits on its @$$ as it has been doing for the last 10 years. Yeah right, France and Germany can say they sit on the moral high ground until 5 – 10 million are killed in the first nuclear exchange intended to kill humans since Nagasaki. Than what will they say … Oh you damn Americans, you shouldn’t have waited?

___And back to France … They did a great job in WWI with the treaty of Versailles (we didn’t do such a great job with that ourselves :() and in WWII, they were for all intents and purposes, a non-combatant given the quick fall of their sovereignty. Chamberlain screwed up as well with a pacifist declarations well after Hitler had already gobbled up a large portion of Germany’s surrounding nations … at least the Brit’s kept preparing for the coming war … I am sure France’s contributions in the next World War will be just as helpful to the betterment of mankind … Damn them watching this from the sidelines. If it weren’t for our help just 60+ short years ago, they wouldn’t exist!

___On the other side, I don’t like to see the US being the ones pushing the issue as we look like Imperialists ourselves but I would much rather see an Iraq without WMD’s than with them.

___Finally, we are all just as much to blame for this situation with our dependency on oil from sources that are anything but secure. I am simply looking 10 – 20 years out and we had better get off this Oil based economy or we will be involved in WW III much sooner than expected unfortunately. That one isn’t going to be 50 – 60 million but more like 100’s of millions to billions once the Nukes fly from the likes of Saddam’s Iraq or the North Koreans … I only wish Pakistan and India would get their act together because they will probably be included in the first billion to disappear from the face of the earth. This whole situation simply sucks for everyone!

___Good Luck to us all …

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
walrus104 said:

When Hitler was increasing his control over Germany, the British Prime Minister made an agreement with him hoping to avert war.
WWII lasted 6 years and cost over 40 millions lives.
And how many lives would have been lost if Hitler was left to do his thing, beyond what horrific things were already going on in Germany and Eastern Europe?
I think 'hoping' says it all....
Not that I think Saddam should remain in power, just not sure what can be done short of war. Something, I 'hope'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Re: Re: War... what is it good for?

BaldEagle said:
Reminds me of a song from the 60's. Can't remeber who sang it but it was a Viet Nam war protest song.

If a was comes to be let's all hope it is over fast and not many lives are lost. I am of the opinion that doing nothing may be the worst of all options.
The song was sung by Edwin Starr - originally recorded by the temptations though. see this link....

http://www.superseventies.com/1970_10singles.html

While I hate to see another war......I believe there are similiarities to Hitler. Saddam is a madman and he needs to be stopped - along with N. Korea.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
More on France....

originally posted by xcel:
I am sure France’s contributions in the next World War will be just as helpful to the betterment of mankind … Damn them watching this from the sidelines. If it weren’t for our help just 60+ short years ago, they wouldn’t exist
Hi ___, (edited)

You made a reference to WWII, and how America saved France. I hear that mentioned in the American media whenever France expresses a view, or suggests a course of action, that American politicians don’t approve of. So I thought I’d put a little historical perspective on this matter.

During the American Revolution, “Benjamin Franklin, serving as the diplomat to France, convinced the French to form an alliance with the fledgling republic against France's enemy, Britain. With Britain fighting on two sides of the Atlantic, the country's resources were stretched to the limits. From 1778 to 1783, France provided the Americans with large sums of money, immense amounts of equipment, about one-half of America's armed forces, and a powerful navy. With newfound resources, the Americans carried on the revolution until the British were forced to simply give up” (http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/kingston/revolt.htm).

If not for the help of the French during the American Revolution, the USA would not have won its independence from England either xcel. If not for France, maybe what is now the USA, would be a part of Canada. That is something the American media (and public) has forgotten long ago.

The USA didn’t enter WWII after France and England declared war on Germany in September of 1939. Rather, it waited until Japan attacked it in December of 1941. Germany declared war on the USA a few days after the attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor. “In September 1941, the U.S. Navy, while technically neutral, began escorting convoys from Canada and the East Coast to an open ocean hand-off point 400 miles west of Iceland. USS Kearny, one of five U.S. destroyers reinforcing a 50-ship convoy south of Iceland, was the target of a three-torpedo spread fired by U-568 on Oct. 15. Kearny, nearly cut in two, survived, but 11 of her crew died. They were the first American naval casualties of the war. The freighter Lehigh, clearly identified as American, was sent to the bottom off the West African coast by U-126 in daylight four days later. On Oct. 31, 1941, the U.S. destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed by U-552 and sunk while escorting a convoy east from Halifax; 115 men died” (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/wwii/facts/lantbttl.txt). So Germany was out sinking American navy ships, but the USA chose not to declare war on Germany at that time - despite the attacks.

While France wasn't able to ward off Germany's attack, at least France declared war on Germany as soon as Poland was attacked - they didn't wait for Germany to attack them first. That's a claim that the USA can't make.

___(edited), it seems to me, that America’s motivation for entering WWII was based much more on self-preservation than altruism toward Europe, or concern for France’s independence.


Good luck to all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
Re: More on France....

oceanMDX said:



Xcel, it seems to me, that America’s motivation for entering WWII was based much more on self-preservation than altruism toward Europe, or concern for France’s independence.


Good luck to all!
Unfortunately, there is a lot to support that position. Though we would like to think of our 'forefathers' as altruistic, at that time the last thing most Americans wanted was to be involved in a European campaign.
I guess we could say it was hindsight and some good press that made it appear our entrance into the European theater had a nobler cause.
Today, with excellent intelligence and communication capability we are able to know what is going on at any time most anywhere in the world.
And although it has cost us dearly in the past, this country's zeal to fight injustices is helped greatly with sophisticated weaponry that enables us to minimize casualties. A far cry from true peace, but some consolation when it comes to protecting our own men and women, and if we don't care about them no one else will.
Motivation, whether it be altruistic idealism, or productive oil fields, is another thing altogether.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Ocean-MDX(edited) makes some good points. It seems to me that there is a group of thinking (possibly more so back during WWII) that suggests the US' initial inaction resulted in many more casualties and destruction than there would have been if we took more positive action sooner.
While I wish this current situation could end today in favor of a long lasting US security via rational negotiations, history lessons suggests this is not likely. We have already been attacked on our sovereign soil and we know today what the Saddam regime is capable of doing. What more provocation is needed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
The European view...

Good points Dale. Now imagine if the USA were to get bogged down in a war with Iraq for 2 years and 3 months, before France came in and joined the fight only after Iraq and its terrorist allies attacked France numerous times and officially declared war on them. I suppose following the standards of the American media, after victory France could boast how they saved American ass out of altruism for the next 60 + years. I would think that the USA would get just a little annoyed with France after hearing such propaganda for decades. Just maybe France is also tired of hearing the USA make similar claims now about their actions and motivation regarding WWII. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some Europeans feel that Americans are arrogant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,266 Posts
Hi OceanMDX:

___A lot of the Revolutionary War was based on France’s efforts no doubt … Do you know why they were helping us? It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that England was the #1 enemy of France during that period, could it? Into the future. Do you also believe England would have ruled the colonies for the last 225 years? Irregardless of France’s help early on in this countries history, the US would have become independent one way or the other.

___As for France in WWII, we did save their @ss without question. Remember, they were a conquered nation which is quite a bit different than France helping us out with an Iraq situation … They really don’t have the forces to help us out much today in whatever battle we were to engage in whether they supported it or not. Without the US taking control of the Allied front, France would be the Republic of the greater Germany and their culture would have been all but consumed by that blood thirsty Hitler and his idea’s of a superior Arian race. France fell within weeks of being attacked which shows how well they were prepared for what was obviously going on around them in 1940. England was being supplied by the US with war material through Lend-Lease months before Pearl Harbor. The same can be said of the support we sent to Russia throughout WWII. It was in our own self interest to let the English and Russian’s fight with their own populace and our HW wherever possible and has been the name of the game in many of the world’s conflicts.

___Present day. If France is not willing to support what needs to be done to clean up the West’s own created mess, maybe they should bow out of the World stage gracefully instead of continuing the sit and wait rhetoric that they are now providing. Do you remember the US pilots having to fly around France’s own air space in the attack on Libya’s military complexes and Quadaffi’s home(s) back in 86? Woohooo, way to go France! Nice job! You may as well said France supported terrorism as that was what that battle was all about … France probably does not have our long term interests in mind and we more than likely do not have theirs but given what happens when a maniacal dictator gets his hands on WMD’s, France, England, Russia, the US, and China have an urgent responsibility to overcome such threats with maximum prejudice if it comes to that.

___The end game is still the same … in the case of a WMD equipped Iraq, we have the possible loss of hundreds of millions in hours/days instead of 40 + million not including Stalin’s own reckless purge/mass murder of his own population and those of what used to be independents surrounding Russia over many years. In this one case, the world has the opportunity to prevent such a travesty with a little more force and a little less talk. I am very worried for India and Pakistan given what has transpired over the past few years but there is little we can do about that one other than keeping the two separate but still talking with one another. North Korea … given their statements of a nuclear first strike toward the US the other day, I have no idea how the US or the world is going to respond to that one? China is sitting idly by enjoying the show by all appearances and that is the worst part. If China were to cut trade, NK is all but finished but China wouldn’t do that now would they?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
A lot of the Revolutionary War was based on France’s efforts no doubt … Do you know why they were helping us OceanMDX? It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that England was the #1 enemy of France during that period, could it?
____(edited), with all the battles that England had with France over what is now Canada (with “English” Canadians and “French” Canadians), you can bet your last dollar that very few Americans are qualified to give lessons to any Canadian on that subject, and I don't hear the French boasting how they saved American @ss during that period of history either.

Do you also believe England would have ruled the colonies for the last 225 years OcenaMDX? Irregardless of France’s help early on in this countries history, the US would have become independent one way or the other.
Well, England managed to rule Canada for a very long time. Also, the southern states of the USA still are part of the Union despite their desire for independent during the American Civil War. No one can say what the future would have brought had the revolutionaries lost their fight. Perhaps what is now the USA would indeed be part of Canada.

As for France in WWII, we did save their @ss without question. Remember, they were a conquered nation which is quite a bit different than France helping us out with an Iraq situation … The really don’t have the forces to help us out much today in whatever battle we were to engage in. Without the US taking control of the Allied front, France would be the Republic of the greater Germany and their culture would have been all but consumed by that blood thirsty Hitler and his idea’s of a superior Arian race. France fell within weeks of being attacked which shows how well they were prepared for what was obviously going on around them in 1940. England was being supplied by the US with war material through Lend-Lease months before Pearl Harbor. The same can be said of the support we sent to Russia throughout WWII. It was in our own self interest to let the English and Russian’s fight with their own populace and our HW wherever possible and has been the name of the game in many of the world’s conflicts.
After the defeat of France by Germany in 1940, during World War II, Vichy was made the seat of the collaborationist French government under Marshal Henri Pétain and his aide Pierre Laval. The so-called Vichy government was closely aligned with the Germans but exercised some independent control in unoccupied France and the French colonies until late 1942, when Germany occupied all of metropolitan France. The Vichy government continued to exist until 1945. Today, France is a world power with nuclear weapons. It has a formidable military that could contribute to a war against Iraq in a significant way. “Lend-Lease” was "An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States. This famous law gave President Franklin Roosevelt the authority to aid Great Britain with ships and other war materials in its war with Nazi Germany in 1941. The U.S. did not join the war until December of that year”.
(http://www.nationalcenter.org/Lend-Lease.html) Lend-Lease didn’t come into effect until 1 ½ years after England and France declared war on Germany. The USA didn't take control of the entire Allied front, they advanced into France, while Canada advanced into Holland (under British command) and General Montgomery (British army) commanded the British victories over German forces in North Africa (1942) and the Allied advance through Normandy (1944). I just wanted to point out that the British and armies from the Commonwealth countries, where not under American command.
Do you remember the US pilots having to fly around France’s own air space in the attack on Libya’s military complexes and Quadaffi’s home(s) back in 86? Woohooo, way to go France! Nice job! You may as well said France supported terrorism as that was what that battle was all about …
Yes, I remember. Perhaps France saw America's plan as a half-baked attack (it was) on Libya that would only provoke Qaddafi (or his security forces) into committing other terrorist attacks - which is what happened (Pan Am 101 over Lockerby) - and France didn't want to be their future target. Ergo, it's clearly not fair to say that France was supporting terrorism, they just didn't want to become a future victim of it. Unfortunately, it's more accurate to say that America fomented a future terrorist attack by going through with a "pin prick" attack on Libya. Perhaps France didn't believe that merely kicking the hornet's nest would make the hornets behave more peacefully. Were they really wrong to think that? Lockerby would suggest that the French were right. Perhaps they would have supported a plan that had a more likely chance of success. It would have been largely a matter of luck to kill Qaddafi in such an attack ____ (edited).

Basically, I share your concerns for the future ____ (edited). I’m only interested in setting the record straight from another perspective.

Good luck to all of us – we’re going to need it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
OceanMDX

You sound like a French speaking people, don't you :) I would like to add some FACTS to your comments:

- Without the assistance of the American 3rd Army in North Africa front, the Field-Marshal Montgomery (I prefer to use this title as his official title is Field-Marshal) could NEVER win over the German Field-Marshal Rommel and his troops.
- Canadian and British troops since the Italian front (Sicilia) then the Normandy's, they were all under U.S. command (one of two American 5 Star Generals Eisenhower, the second one is McArthur). In fact, there were 3 "allies groups": One under Marshal Mongomery, one under General Patton and another was under General Bradley.
- About the French assistance during the American Evolution, nobody could deny this fact. To France, "enemy of our enemy is our friend". Also, as France had already lost the "Eastern Canada" to England after the Abraham battle field (near Quebec city), it didn't want to loose its control on the southern part of America (Lousiana etc). Therefore, it was better for France to help Americans in order to keep these lands the most possible...


One way or another, France will participate to the War with Iraq. It already sent its Charles de Gaule aircraft carrier to do some exercises with the American Harry Truman last week.

:1:
 
1 - 20 of 528 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top