Need my Canadian Bro's thoughts and feelings.

**jammergsxr** · 03-17-2003, 11:20 PM

I've noticed alot of Canadians are against the war in Iraq, I am an American and I thought it would be educational to hear
1.why you are for or against
2.how is this war effecting your lives and community
this post is not just for Canadians anyone from anywhere other than the U.S.,So we Americans can hear all the different views.

Remember this is educational,all views should be respected and encouraged I'm not starting this to create a pissing match!

**Expendable** · 03-18-2003, 09:35 AM

I'm not against it. Saddam should have been turfed out back in the gulf for the bullshit he caused, so if anything, the US has been too kind for letting him stay in power this long.

I'm personally with the USA on this one. I roll my eyes to everyone who's against it, because it's as if they forgive him for the damage he has already caused. Give me a break.

**chicamahomico** · 03-18-2003, 12:26 PM

Just because our Prime Minister, who I dare say is a silly frog(IMO people, and I am entitled to it), isn't supporting US efforts in Iraq does't reflect the opinion of all Canadians. I can only speak for myself but I think the US is doing the right thing and I just hope they do the thing right(After all they fucked up operation Desert Storm). As far as the war effecting my life, so far not at all.

**Got Gear?** · 03-18-2003, 12:53 PM

Well. I'm against it.. but not like alot of you would think.

I'd like to see Saddam and all of his supporters dead.

The Iraqi people would like to see Saddam dead.

But the Iraqi people arn't willing to pay the price. They'd rather live under Saddam's rule.

I think it's immoral to "save" a country that doesn't want saving. Regardless of how much better off they'd be.

I think this "Weapons of mass Destruction" thing is mostly a sham. Saddam hasn't done anything with these weapons, hasn't purchased any (with the exception of some missles slightly over range), and hasn't threatened anyone with them. Why is the US so hung up on this all of a sudden? I mean, the US had known about Saddam's weapons for decades now... yet suddenly it's a problem? I think he's dangerous and he shouldn't have them. But the US making a big deal about it out of the blue is also BS!!

**Big Rush** · 03-18-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Got Gear?

But the US making a big deal about it out of the blue is also BS!!

Out of the blue?..... Like 9/11? I believe that Saddam is/was involved in terrorist activities directed at the US and possibly other countries. He (a terrorist) has NO business possessing missles. Period. You would probably feel differently if Vancouver was bombed by terrorists. Your arguement is crap IMO.

**Got Gear?** · 03-18-2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Big Rush

Out of the blue?..... Like 9/11? I believe that Saddam is/was involved in terrorist activities directed at the US and possibly other countries. He (a terrorist) has NO business possessing missles. Period. You would probably feel differently if Vancouver was bombed by terrorists. Your arguement is crap IMO.

Lol.. no your argument is crap.

There has been no proven link between Saddam and terrorism. Even that "terrorist funding" link is pretty far-fetched and thin. And unfortunately, your opinion (like mine) doesn't mean crap. Hello, 9/11 was a different country with a different bad guy. The US and it's people seem to be using the terrorism thing as an excuse for everything lately.

If Vancouver was bomed by terrorists I'd go after the terrorists that bombed it! So if Seattle is bombed by a group of Jewish people, that gives the US the right to declare war on all Jews? Sounds familliar....

**Terinox** · 03-18-2003, 01:39 PM

I'm in the same boat as Got Gear. First of all, EVERYONE is against war, "war" itself, Iraq aside, no one wants war.

However, like I've said before, the problem is NOT Saddam, and getting rid of him or his weapons won't do shit. There are always more ways of getting/making weapons, and there are TONS of people to replace Saddam once he is killed/exiled.

Like i've said before the problem lies at the ROOT. You have to do a LOT of work. I mean go in there, change the regime, stop allowing religion to run the ME. Make sure wise educated men rule the country, and STAY as the ruler. Must provide protection for them, and watch over the country. Allow it to change from the ROOTS. And this is something the U.S. or the UN is NOT willing to do and basically just can't do. Why? Probably because they don't really know how to, because it is NOT an easy thing to do. I'm pretty sure the majority of the ME would like nothing more to become "advanced" and "caught up" with the rest of the world. It is the governments that don't allow this.

If you fucken raise as much as a finger to protest or state your opinion, the fucken "secret police" will come into your house and fucken kill you and your entire family at night. And will anyone care? Will anything ask why these people were killed? HELL NO, cuz then you would be next!!! And the government will always hide it and hide it well. They will capture some fucken petty theif who just stole some bread and blame him for the murders and cover it up.

THERE IS A LOT going on in the Middle East that you can't even BEGIN to grasp. It goes DEEP, very deep. And therefore, it will remain a problem FOR AS LONG as possible until something is done BY THE ROOTS!!!

Example, you keep cutting plants/trees they will continue to grow. U.S. can cut down as many plants/weeds they want, BUT UNTIL they get rid of the ROOTS, and plant new seeds these problems will be here forever!!!

**Terinox** · 03-18-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Big Rush

Out of the blue?..... Like 9/11? I believe that Saddam is/was involved in terrorist activities directed at the US and possibly other countries. He (a terrorist) has NO business possessing missles. Period. You would probably feel differently if Vancouver was bombed by terrorists. Your arguement is crap IMO.

Got Gear, BR has a point here. Like I just said in my post above this one, this shit goes DEEP. There are supporters in MANY countries. And I wouldn't be surprised if Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, and even Southern Russia, Saudi Arabi were all involved in 9/11. And if they did not help, they were at least aware what was going to happen. I mean even the U.S. new ahead of time that something big was going to happen.

However, Big Rush, I don't agree how you say that Saddam should have no weapons at all. What gives the U.S. the right to possess hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons, and tons of other weapons, but no other country should? If it were up to U.S. they would make sure ONLY they have the weapons. They believe they are the only responsible ones?!?! That is not fair. They want the entire ME to be helpless. And if possible the entire world.

**Got Gear?** · 03-18-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Terinox
Got Gear, BR has a point here. Like I just said in my post above this one, this shit goes DEEP. There are supporters in MANY countries. And I wouldn't be surprised if Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, and even Southern Russia, Saudi Arabi were all involved in 9/11. And if they did not help, they were at least aware what was going to happen. I mean even the U.S. new ahead of time that something big was going to happen.

Ahh.. It wouldn't surprise me if Iraq was involved as well.

BUT! Until there's proof, we have to assume differently. If you think about 9/11 it was a large undertaking, but nothing huge. Just smuggle a few guys into the states, teach them to fly and get them into planes. Not something that would take to co-operation of multiple organizations.

Until someone has proof or something that shows Iraq was involved, we've got to assume they are innocent. Kinda like the justice system hey?

**Terinox** · 03-18-2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Got Gear?

Ahh.. It wouldn't surprise me if Iraq was involved as well.

BUT! Until there's proof, we have to assume differently. If you think about 9/11 it was a large undertaking, but nothing huge. Just smuggle a few guys into the states, teach them to fly and get them into planes. Not something that would take to co-operation of multiple organizations.

Until someone has proof or something that shows Iraq was involved, we've got to assume they are innocent. Kinda like the justice system hey?

According to your Biography, your "Young, Dumb, and Ugly.." so what the hell do you know?

Just kidding bro

I know your point, it is a reasonable one. "Innocent until proven guilty" and yes we have heard that phrase a many many times. This shit truly is complicated!!!

**Got Gear?** · 03-18-2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Terinox

According to your Biography, your "Young, Dumb, and Ugly.." so what the hell do you know?

Just kidding bro

I know your point, it is a reasonable one. "Innocent until proven guilty" and yes we have heard that phrase a many many times. This shit truly is complicated!!!

You're correct on all points!!

I take the innocent until proven guilty point only so far here. Just because I don't think Iraq is guilty. Not because I think Iraq wouldn't help, but because I honestly believe that Bin Laden didn't need any help. Like I said 9/11 was a big undertaking, but not so big that it would have needed the help of others. All he really did is smuggle in some terrorists who knew how to fly planes and work a box-cutter.

**usualsuspect** · 03-18-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Got Gear?
I think this "Weapons of mass Destruction" thing is mostly a sham. Saddam hasn't done anything with these weapons, hasn't purchased any (with the exception of some missles slightly over range), and hasn't threatened anyone with them. Why is the US so hung up on this all of a sudden? I mean, the US had known about Saddam's weapons for decades now... yet suddenly it's a problem? I think he's dangerous and he shouldn't have them. But the US making a big deal about it out of the blue is also BS!!

Got Gear, although you have made several valid points questioning United States involvement in Iraq, I think your failing to put yourself in OUR shoes and seeing the big picture. Since your stance on this issue is quite clear, I do not, by no means attempt to sway your view. Hopefully this analogy will serve to expand your perspective a little on this.

Let's say you go to the doctor's for a regular checkup and he tells you he has some bad news to tell you. You find out you have a cancerous tumor in your prostate. He follows up by explaining the seriousness of the cancer. He tells you the cancerous tumor is in its infant stages and can be removed before it spreads and gets worse. He tells you that right now the cancer is not that aggressive but it could worsen. So your options are (1) "going under the knife" and getting it removed or (2) doing basically nothing and hoping it will go away. Your thinking to yourself that you could forego surgery and resort to other treatments (prayer, natural remedies, etc) with hopes it will be contained...bt again your reminded that the tumor is not deadly right now but has the potential to become very aggresive and when it does it will probably be too late.

Got Gear, if your in this situation (and hopefully you will never be), do you get the cancer removed before its too late or do you just hope the tumor does not get worse? I'm curious to hear how you would handle this situation.

**Terinox** · 03-18-2003, 07:58 PM

That is a valid analogy, and it does make sense. However, anything that is POTENTIALLY dangerous is bad and should be removed/dealt with? If this is a problem, then why not get rid of ALL cancers? North Korean nuclear weapons of mass destruction (which they admit to having) is a big threat, why not get rid of it? You might say, well, there is no proof he will attack the U.S. or that they are involved with terrorists. But then again, same with Iraq. Only different, Iraq is in the Middle East, and it's full of oil. They are after all the number one distributor. Now I'm NOT saying that is the only reason this war might occure, but it is definetly a part of it.

Think for a second, if it really IS about oil, do you think Bush would OPENLY tell everyone, yeah, oil prices are too high, reserves are low, and I'm in the mood for a war. Obviously he couldn't say that.

Now I know 9/11 was very tragic, but still, when you think about it, when the majority of the world does not want war, what makes the U.S. right? I know Britain supports them, but I don't like the way Blair fell into it so fast, I'm more than certain there is something behind that, which the people do not know about. There is only about less than 20% support on a war going on (can't remember exactly how it was, this was on American news channel). I'm NOT saying that Saddam should be left alone, he should MOST DEFINETLY be dealt with, but just using other means. And it would REALLY help if the U.S. could AT LEAST put more effort into finding Bin Laden, and then going on from there. But it seems as if they gave up on Bin Laden, and just decided to settle for the next best thing, which would be Iraq. And then after Iraq, HEY, they are so close to Iran, let's take care of them too. And...might as well take care of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, etc...

**jammergsxr** · 03-18-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Terinox
That is a valid analogy, and it does make sense. However, anything that is POTENTIALLY dangerous is bad and should be removed/dealt with? If this is a problem, then why not get rid of ALL cancers? North Korean nuclear weapons of mass destruction (which they admit to having) is a big threat, why not get rid of it? You might say, well, there is no proof he will attack the U.S. or that they are involved with terrorists. But then again, same with Iraq. Only different, Iraq is in the Middle East, and it's full of oil. They are after all the number one distributor. Now I'm NOT saying that is the only reason this war might occure, but it is definetly a part of it.

Think for a second, if it really IS about oil, do you think Bush would OPENLY tell everyone, yeah, oil prices are too high, reserves are low, and I'm in the mood for a war. Obviously he couldn't say that.

Now I know 9/11 was very tragic, but still, when you think about it, when the majority of the world does not want war, what makes the U.S. right? I know Britain supports them, but I don't like the way Blair fell into it so fast, I'm more than certain there is something behind that, which the people do not know about. There is only about less than 20% support on a war going on (can't remember exactly how it was, this was on American news channel). I'm NOT saying that Saddam should be left alone, he should MOST DEFINETLY be dealt with, but just using other means. And it would REALLY help if the U.S. could AT LEAST put more effort into finding Bin Laden, and then going on from there. But it seems as if they gave up on Bin Laden, and just decided to settle for the next best thing, which would be Iraq. And then after Iraq, HEY, they are so close to Iran, let's take care of them too. And...might as well take care of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, etc...

Terinox you disappoint me,Do you think this will stop after Iraq?No,no,no,no.Why?You've already answered that.
Is this war over oil?No we only get about 17% of our oil there,hopefully more once this is settled.
The U.S. is still after Bin Laden its just not NEW news so it's coverage has faded.We have tried all means possible to resolve the issue with suddam,You just can't reason with an asshole so what do you do with an asshole?You beat his ass like a little bitch!
I think Blair is the only Allie that relizes all that the U.S. does and this is his opportunity to say thanks we support you and we are here to back you the way the world should.So many countries owe us substantial amounts of money that they havn't even bothered to start paying the interest,That is what kills me with this lack of support....

But is this effecting your guys family or communities?
If so in what ways ....remember lets not slam each other over our views
I think these debates really help as an outlet for our true opinions.

**jammergsxr** · 03-18-2003, 11:17 PM

Oh and Terinox the part where you stated there seems to be something behind Blair,There is more than likely stuff behind all of this that would generally scare the living shit out of all of us,Can you imagine being a fly on the wall?After we heard what all is really happening we'd probably screw a 45 in our face and it would be the smart choice!LOL

**Terinox** · 03-19-2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by jammergsxr
Oh and Terinox the part where you stated there seems to be something behind Blair,There is more than likely stuff behind all of this that would generally scare the living shit out of all of us,Can you imagine being a fly on the wall?After we heard what all is really happening we'd probably screw a 45 in our face and it would be the smart choice!LOL

True true.

In terms of it actually affecting Canadians lives, I can't really see a difference. I mean, there have been tons of protests (peaceful ones) with people demanding we do not go to war. In terms of things really changing or something, personally I don't really see anything different. I mean our lives haven't really changed. However, I'm not sure in the political or economical sense. I'm pretty sure both those will be affected. Some people are concerned that Canada NOT helping out the U.S. will cause some problems regarding our vast amounts of trading which we do, and also, maybe politically there might be some problems.

According to Chretien, we are not going to war because the UN has not permitted it. I really don't think it is because he is a cowards, or that he's a pussy not wanting to send troops. We have always helped out our brothers down south whenever possible. Like after 9/11 I think we sent some help down to New York, to help out with everything, and Canada said back then that whatever the U.S. needed Canada would make sure to do their best. However, I don't like the fact that the U.S. is getting so pissed off with Canada. I mean we are our own country and all that, and Chretien does have to make his own decisions. Personally, I think it has nothing to do with UN. I think it is because SO many of the people don't want war, and he wants to keep the people happy, and stay a happy and loved PM (LOL) and so he's doing this for hte people.

If actual proof did come about though, or if the war turned into a really bad situation, then Canada for sure would send all available troops to help the U.S.

**jammergsxr** · 03-19-2003, 11:50 AM

At least you guys are keeping you war protest civil.Bleeding hearts detryoed a 9/11 monument in california protesting,an ass hole parked his tractor in a pond in Washington,Makes sence doesn't it,protest violence using violence and wonder why we don't listen to them!

***Cycleon*** · 03-19-2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Terinox
However, Big Rush, I don't agree how you say that Saddam should have no weapons at all. What gives the U.S. the right to possess hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons, and tons of other weapons, but no other country should? If it were up to U.S. they would make sure ONLY they have the weapons. They believe they are the only responsible ones?!?! That is not fair. They want the entire ME to be helpless. And if possible the entire world.

Strangely however, most Canadians have no problem believing that ONLY the police should have guns - what makes them so responsible?

**jammergsxr** · 03-19-2003, 12:02 PM

and the man lays the smack down

**BigJB** · 03-19-2003, 04:42 PM

the war with iraq is just freakin stupid,
Korea and Iran are more of a threat to america than iraq is, and mybe if we take care or korea and iran iraq will back down.

**Terinox** · 03-19-2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by BigJB
the war with iraq is just freakin stupid,
Korea and Iran are more of a threat to america than iraq is, and mybe if we take care or korea and iran iraq will back down.

What makes you think Iran is a bigger threat then Iraq? Could you elaborate more on this, and give some facts/comments? I would have to disagree.

**Terinox** · 03-19-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by CYCLEON

Strangely however, most Canadians have no problem believing that ONLY the police should have guns - what makes them so responsible?

Smart ass

I get what you mean bro, but why should U.S. be the "World Police"

That is what the United Nations is supposed to be, a UNITED policing of the entire world. The U.S. going to war with THEIR weapons is like the police saying they can't handle the case, or that they don't think it is very important, and as a result, some angry security guard goes and buys some guns and takes care of the matter himself, personally. Is that right?

If someone stabs me in the stomach, and he gets arrested and charged. Should I go ahead and kill him? I have to sit aside, let the bigger boyz handle it (the courts, etc...) and NOT me. That's my analogy, best I could do

Then again, I have to admit, as a young adult, just like any other adult, danger to a certain degree excites us. And hell if I could own a gun and not get in trouble, i'd love to have one. Although in the big picture I know overall it's not right, and that it's better off not having weapons.

Also, cops have gone through training, etc... and the police HAVE THE PERMISSION of their captains, their leaders, etc... Just like how UN is the overseer, and if they haven't given the "go" then why should cops go around the streets doing whatever they want?

**Big Rush** · 03-19-2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Terinox

However, Big Rush, I don't agree how you say that Saddam should have no weapons at all. What gives the U.S. the right to possess hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons, and tons of other weapons, but no other country should? If it were up to U.S. they would make sure ONLY they have the weapons. They believe they are the only responsible ones?!?! That is not fair. They want the entire ME to be helpless. And if possible the entire world.

Saddam uses his weapons on his own people. I think thats a pretty damn good reason. Just ask the Kurds.