You know what I find interesting?...USA's short term memory...

[Erickson]

Can't wait for Irag to fall....then Korea after that....

& Heathen there is a good chance I might be in the Gulf.....

[lmanchur.]

buckeye, what policy were the States following? Um, Their Own!!!!!... they could have just as easily changed it. Ya, Canada wasn't a sell-sufficient country until 1931 or 1932, but British influence wasn't the lone reason we went to war... and we had a great debate about it 'cuz the French here were just as "American" as the states were, not wanting to goto war either.

All I'm saying is, is I don't understnad why the States is so stuck up against us seeing as how we just want a multilateral approach to this war... waiting just like the States did during the first two world wars.

[air_canada]

I just want to remind you that the British asked, not ordered, if I'm not mistaken, Canada to aid them in their war effort. Canada possessed and still possesses great industrial power in, for one, the domain of aluminum production. Aluminum was one of the most needed products during the war, used to construct everything from helmets to tanks to rifle parts. Some of this aluminum was produced in my hometown, after the construction of a dam during WWII in which several people died. Canadians, even if their troops didn't make much of an impact, were always involved in one way or another.

I invite you to look at this link, concerning GERMANS for American independence:

http://www.americanrevolution.org/flohr2.html

[buckeyefan78]

YEAH, ENGLAND " ASKED" CANADA FOR HELP IN THE WARS...SURE THEY DID ( SAID VERY SARCASTICLY). Just like when your mom " asked" you to do stuff as a kid...no, SHE TOLD YOU ! The Canadians were not a government fully by themselves, they were still under heavy Brtish influence,and alot of actual British governmental rule. This is in no way to disrespect Canada or their people, it's just the way it was. Hey, same scenario happened alot to future Americans in the 1750s when the colonists were " asked" to help fight off French and Indian foes of the British. No, it was clear that if the colonists ( future Americans) didn't help, they would suffer consequences from the government ( British) that was controlling them at the time.

Hell, I'm not questioning the bravery and morally correct fact that Canada helped in the war, all I'm saying is that it is unclear what Canada's role in the wars would have been if they were their own soverign nation at the time, thats all.Based on what I know of Canadian government and people, I believe they would have fought anyway, cause they are people of respect and morals ! (even more then America alot of times !!!!!)

The United States government were following a policy of neutralization declared on Sept 5, 1939, a few days after the Germans marched through Poland.

At the time, as in the first World War, American sentiment was this. Europe is Europe. Let them do what they want, it has no bearing on us. Remember, at the time of both World Wars, esp. WWI, America was not the super power they became. What reason SC-Lee, would America have for entering either war before attacked? American interests were not threatened and neither were it's borders. I actually thought it was a good policy due to America's limited military and resources compared to the super powers of the time ( England, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia). One theory, not often heard in America, is that Roosevelt was looking to get into the war to ease the Great Depression and ignored the warning signs of Pearl Harbor. True or not, WWII ended the GD for America.

The circumstances SC_Lee are totally different from WWII and now. Why does the U.S. want war so bad and is pushing everyone along you ask? America wants support for this war for several reasons. First, if other nations cooperate, American cost and casuality is held down. Second, the unified response is harder on Iraq, who will try to play political games to get America's non-supporters to put pressure on the U.S. The unified response will also be helpful in " showing" America's other main enemy , N. Korea, that the U.S. is not to be played with.

The biggest reason why though is this SC_Lee. If the U.S. attacks Iraq without clearance from the UN, this will be an ILLEGAL war based on international law, in which rogue nations will rejoice at and stir up trouble elsewhere ( N. Korea with S. Korea and China with Taiwan). America would not be able to use the line " we attacked because Iraq hasn't followed through on the UN Resolutions", if France and Germany collaborate to veto the UN's official line on the matter. Basiclly, the U.S. would be acting as one nation attacking another without being provoked, purely ILLEGAL. ( America will get away with it though, cause hell, their America)

At this point, I don't understand why, ( although it may be going on behind closed doors) aren't the Americans telling the French and Germans to give acceptance to the attack and we'll make sure you guys don't have to do much and there will be something in it down the road for you. This would put more burden on America in the fight, but if Bush is so hell bent on war, he's going to have to do something like this at this point, cause no one likes America's positon right now. This is how America has worked since the beginning of time, a nation of used car salesmen. It would have been nice for everyone to approve, but they aren't, so America is going to have to sacrifice a little to get that approval, but if that's what it takes, appearantly the U.S. is willing to do it.

[qb_rms]

If we were to assasinate Saddam, who's to say that his son or somebody else won't take over and continue to opress the people.

I found one comment of interest...

Somebody said that since Iraq is already in poverty, why do we need to attack them?

Well, for one, who's fault is that? You got it, Saddam. Secondly, if the US was to oust the current regime and impose a new government, we might be able to rebuild their economy like we did with the Germans and Japanese after WWII.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Buckeyefan, I don't know where you are getting your information on the Iraq issue. There was a vote in Congress, and it went in favor of what George W. Bush has been saying. If you remember, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman and the boys all voted for this act and are some are now supposedly against it because its campaign time. But the vote was already taken by Congress, and it gave the President the power to remove the Iraqi dictator.

And, there was a UN resolution made regarding Iraq, and that gives the United States clearance to go to war if the Iraqi regime does not fully comply with international law. They have not, and will not--so no second resolution is needed by international law MAKING IT NOT ONLY A MORAL, BUT LEGAL WAR. However, many want the second resolution anyway so as to leave absolutely no doubt. This is why France is saying it will veto a SECOND resolution, because there has already been one. That is fine, if they really want to sever their ties with the strongest country in the world, they can go ahead, and gain absolutely nothing in the process because this second resolution business is unnecessary technicality garbage and we don't need one anyway--and it will not stop the war because it does not have the power to.

I dunno about you guys, but for supposedly a gun-slingin' President, George W. Bush sure seems to be being very careful about this and going through all the channels all the anti-war crowd dommanded him to go through.

They told him he needed a vote from Congress, and he got one. They said he had to go through the United Nations, he did. They wanted to give inspectors time, they got it. They said we need to give Saddam a last chance, he's gotten fifty. They said that you can't rush into war, he hasn't. (Remember all the ''guarantees" we'd be in by Christmas?) So now they are finally out of excuses and their true colors are showing. Only one man can prevent war right now, and it sure isn't George W. Bush.

[Heathen]

Originally posted by SX Insider
Heathen there is a good chance I might be in the Gulf.....

Maybe I'll see ya there

I left the Army 2 1/2 years ago and my buddy just got called up.... looks like I might be next.

[buckeyefan78]

I messed up Ricky. I said something about Bush going to war with Iraq without Congress approval.I was trying to be general, but you called me on it so here is what I meant. You are right, Congress voted on a resolution that backed military action against Iraq. THIS RESOLUTION WAS IN NO WAY AN EXPLICIT " DECLARATION OF WAR" WITH IRAQ. ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR ON ANOTHER NATION. The last time this happened was WWII. As of current time, as I am writing this, I am completely unaware of the United States Congress declaring war on any nation.

The War Powers Act of 1973 states that "the President must seek Congress approval before or shortly after military action begins." It also requires the President to " report to Congress". This law was in direct relation to the fiasco know as the Vietnam War...ahem....excuse me.....the Vietnam Conflict...because CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR, the whole damn thing was illegal ! Now, this is interesting, cause technically Bush can use military force and then ask Congressional approval, but will he? Will Congress actually " declare war" as only they can do? To be fair Ricky, let's see if it happens. After all,war was never declared by Congress, with Dubya's pop back int he early 90s. He broke the law too, a common theme for Presidents, of both parties that is.

Now, Congress passed this so called resolution, but in reality, it is worthless and has no effect. In fact, the same thing I am saying now was brought up before the original Gulf War....ahem...Conflict...again.

And a lawsuit was actually filed by some members of Congress ( only 54, but in my opinion, the only 54 that have read the Constitution), but it was dismissed by a judge because 54 Congressman wasn't a big enough percentage of Congress, although HE AGREED THAT THEY WERE CORRECT IN PRINCIPAL ( AKA...YEAH, YOUR RIGHT BY THE CONSTITUTION...WHICH IS THE LAW). So let's get this straight, the judge, who was smart enough to realize the 54 members of Congress were right, that Gulf "War" I was illegal cause war was never declared,dismissed the case because that wasn't enough members of Congress percentage wise? Basiclly, that means it's ok to break laws if only a low percentage of people call you on it....GIVE ME A BREAK !

I will give Bush some leniency, but if he neither briefs Congress before or shortly after he authorizes military action, I will call him on it. And if war is never declared by Congress within days of military action...send the bum to jail...he broke the law. Again, never going to happen, cause people do whatever the hell the want in their own special interests. Let's see what happens.

I need to rest now Ricky...LOL...I'll address the UN Resolution thing tommorrow...

[RaviPachai18]

Originally posted by qb_rms
Well, for one, who's fault is that? You got it, Saddam. Secondly, if the US was to oust the current regime and impose a new government, we might be able to rebuild their economy like we did with the Germans and Japanese after WWII.

Rebuild their economy? Is that a nice way of saying control their resources?

[qb_rms]

No, I mean like what we did to Japan and Germany after WWII. Their economies had been completely destroyed, and now look at them. The US turned those two countries into economic powerhouses. Now, we might not help Iraq in such a large way, but we definitely couldn't do worse than Saddam is doing.

And, for those that think we are going to Iraq for the oil. No, we are going Iraq, but "to the victor goes the spoils." A nice way to fund the war, I think.

[buckeyefan78]

Your pretty much right at the current time Ricky in regards to the resolutions in the UN authorizing military action with Iraq. However, just because resolution 1 has passed giving clearance, doesn't mean resolution 2 ( the current one being debated), or a future resolution will either limit or change the effect of resolution 1. Okay, a tongue twister, but this is basiclly what I am saying...

After resolution 1 passed, we both agree that was LEGAL. Now, I'm with you on this Ricky. After that resolution passed though, Bush blew it. He should have " asked" Congress to declare war, which I have already stated, they can only do, and then attack Iraq. This would have been LEGAL to the bone internationally and nationally, and while I don't morally agree with the war, as someone who is for LAW AND ORDER, my only objections would be personal, and I can live with that, cause I'm just some guy off the street! Bush, the idiot that he is, has given the UN more time to play paddy cake with the likes of France and Germany, while the original resolution, the one giving an attack the ok, could POSSIBLY be tainted or WEAKENED by another resolution or something else sent down by the UN. We all know stranger things have happened, esp. when it comes to the morons at the UN.

This scenario, is highly unlikey, and I agree Ricky, it proably won't happen, but like I said, Bush should have had his act together on this one, and he blew it. If my scenario occurs though, and resolution 1 is weakened or sullied somehow by the idiots at the UN, the U.S.'s enemies and the likes of France and Germany will have more fuel to their fire.

I will even admit that this scenario is a little bit stretching it, but it is just another example of Bush's ineptness in getting this thing done right. Someone who has READ the Constitution, and knows the political climate of France and Germany should have baby stepped Bush through this whole thing ! If they would have, the damn war, which would have been COMPLETELY legal, would be over by now !

Remember how we earlier discussed in another thread how I stated Bush was dumb for not using the OLD resolutions as a means to war? Well, he didn't use the old ones, had resolution 1 passed giving the ok, and now we have yet another resolution being debated. Is this guy brain dead? To hell with everyone Bush, you had your legal windows, do it !!!!! With each day and further resolutions being flaunted about, this whole situation becomes so dicey, that the U.S.'s enemies and non-supporters grow stronger by the day !!! This is resulting in an inevitable " conflict", not war, cause it will be illegal nationally in all likelyhood, that will be more dangerous and divided. This in return will cost more lives,money, disention, and tension around the world. Read a book Dubya....you idiot !

[buckeyefan78]

God help give Dubya a brain !!!!!!!

Ricky, I know I've written alot for you to digest here in our spirited debate, but I have to add one more thing. After writting my last post, I see on Yahoo that Bush and Blair are going to PROPOSE ANOTHER RESOLUTION NEXT WEEK !!!!!!!!!!! God almighty, help me. This is my whole point Ricky. He is doing it again. Let's recap...(ALL MY LEGALS IN THE FOLLOWING TEXT ARE INT. LEGALS, NOT NATIONAL LEGALS)

old resolutions from 1991...broken...LEGAL to start war, but Bush declines

resolution 1 passed...LEGAL to start war, but Bush declines

resolution 2 in limbo...Bush still with LEGAL means to start war based on 1, but Bush declines again

resolution 3...to be announced next week...outcome ?

Hey Dubya, you are inviting holes in legalities and creating more division in the world...attack Iraq LEGALLY now internationally and have Congress declare war back home LEGALLY...before you get us all killed.....SHEESH....

He's like a little kid who asked his mom for a candy bar and she says yes. Instead of eating the candy bar, he keeps asking and asking her for some damn reason, all the while she says yes. JUST EAT YOUR DAMN CANDY BAR BUSH...YOU INSECURE IDIOT !

[qb_rms]

But the second resolution would be to have full backing from the UN. Something the US needs. Bush doesn't want to go to war against France and Germany's wishes. He wants to make an example of Iraq and show all the terrorist-supporting regimes that the whole world is against their actions and stands with the US.

Believe it or not, Bush is using diplomacy against Iraq.

[air_canada]

@ Ravi
That's what I thought to. America didn't exactly rebuild economies. Mostly is was the new governments focusing in other departments than war.

[buckeyefan78]

Why does the U.S. need full backing qb_rms? As of right now, Bush has the legal means internationally to attack Iraq ( doesn't have a declaration of war by Congress, so illegal at this point nationally.,although some debate my view on it).

Since when is Iraq a terrorist supporting regime? Where's the evidence? Bush has created all these terms that people just spit out as fact, when in reality it's Bush trying to sound like he knows something. Iraq broke resolutions...legal int. means in place for war...get war declared by Congress...blow Iraq up...let's see...let's see that's no more then 4 steps. Wow, things are easy when you know the law.

Any country arguing against my above four steps is a renegade nation with no respect for international law and a defiant nation of the United Nations, that includes Germany and France. Let's get one thing straight, America answers to the CONSTITUTION before anyone else...that includes the Germans, the French, the UN, and whoever.

Bush isn't using diplomacy with Iraq, he's thinks he is using diplomacy with OTHER foreign nation and liberals back home. He doesn't have to answer to either of them, if he uses legal means to carry out his goals. That's the problem with conservatives, they get so defensive when liberals use scare tactics with them when the conservatives are well within legal rights...( never thought you'd hear me say that huh Ricky?...LOL). For some reason, they don't know how to handle it.

A perfect example of this is the 2000 election fiasco with Bush and Gore. Although both sides, in my opinion, were guilty of MANY ILLEGAL acts during the mad scramble for power, it just seems like liberals are better at those kind of things. You know, smoothing things over, being sly. Look at Clinton, that guy could sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo !!!