Hate, and the Role of a Superpower

[MommC]

AZB....don't know if it was shown on DR TV

but Blair was one of the first to announce that England wouldn't be joining in on any attack on Iraq, even before Chretien announced that Canada would not join in without intense consideration and provocation first. Next newcast had Blair urging everyone to allie with the Americans in putting an end to Husseins' control of Iraq.
We've all been laying bets on what it was the Bush said to him to make him change his mind so quickly!
Wanna bet Blair's first announcement never made the airwaves in the States???

 

[Not registered]

To Not Registered
Why the Canada bashing? And it's not just from you I read this. Several posters make it sound like we as a country are totally useless, have not lost lives of soldiers, or cannot stand up and fight when neccesary. (Yes I know our military is not as big, as well-equippped etc etc, but Canada has chosen the role of peacekeeping) I am not a history buff so cannot cite dates, battles, etc., other than the stories I was told.

It is my humble opinion that as neighbours and allies we need each other. In times like these we need to be working together.

I work with Americans, love to visit and sure, I would move (to select cities). I never felt that "America asked for it" so guess I am in the other 40%. I watched in horror as I saw the dessication of NYC - a city I had just recently visited and where friends live........

It's all money and greed under the guise of a religious war. I too wish someone of the Muslim faith would join in. The people I know that are Muslim are peaceful, and do not interpret the words of the Koran as license to kill.

DUBLD

I am not "Canada Bashing," but responding to Mom c's usual "If it werre Canada rhetoric" You think I would have learned from my last session here that some people suffer severely from Nationalistic myopia. My original comment was about (I can't even recall) but I think something about the US is slow getting involved, as were were slow in WWII, this was in regard to our "slow response to terrorism untill 9/11, and Mom C turns it into "The Us didn't do much in WW II, it was the Battle of Britain blah blah blah

I LIKE CANADA< I LIKE CANADIANS (Most of them), but I think if you read Mom C's post, 90% take a cheap swipe at the US for no reason, that is bashing.

I'm going to learn quickly this time, some asked why I don't produce a trip report on my visit to the DR, this is why. Some people have nothing better to do than try and find fault in what others pots, twist the message to suit their own agenda and start a "war" I'm not interested, don't have the time and am done.

My original comments were: Loved my last visit to DR
Think anyone who feels the 9/11 attack was a "US Govt> coverup needs psy help

End of my story

Janice

 

[Not registered]

Re: And the point is????/ your head

or do you just think I'm showing my ignorance again???

Yes, I am certain of that

or is it just the lack of information inside the borders of the US at play?

We have at our dispoal the greatest available information of anyplace on Earth, so much we have to sort it out instead of taking what State run media feeds us

If we feel we are lacking, we tune to the World renowned "Voice of Canada" for unbiased up to the minute World information

Good bye Mom C, I really am tired of you and I only have been back a few hours

 

[bob saunders]

As i said in an earlier post, why is it that people like ABZ continue to blame Israel for the worlds problems. Since I'm part JEWISH, I must be truely evil. I don't agree with Israelis putting settlements into the West Bank and Gaza and either do the majority of Israelis. Neither do I agree with religious(Ha) leaders convincing young, uneducated children and youth to blow themselves up and take other inocent children and people with them.
I agree with you ABZ, Sadam Hussein isn't such as bad guy, after all he gives $25,000US to the family of every Suicide Bomber, and he really hasn't killed as many people as the media tells us. I think the American Goverment should truely be going after Syria and give Sadam Hussein a break, after all he's quite intelligent so he's probably of Jewish descent.
I sure wish you were from Missouri( the show me state) like Jim who doesn't believe anything he hears, you instead chose to believe only the facts( as you see) that support your fanatical hate for Jews and Israel. You are a jack muslim. That's like a Jack Mormom, only religious when it's advantageous to you.

 

[Not registered]

AZB. you are incorrect

The United States has never dropped a Nuclear bomb on anyone

 

[mick]

i only wanted to find out about DR, when i saw this.
for the record, USA was healping Araqis during iran and iraq war,
they supported ben ladin and mojahedin to fight russian,
they sold armes to islamic republic of iran (col. north) and gave the mony to nicaregoa,
there is a double estandard in us policy,
the head of MI6 is mr rothschild,
the head of mosaud is mr rothschild,
%33 of french income belong to rothschild,
in sweden mr rotschild,
stady rotschile family history and many of debates will be elaminated,
rothschild are jewish family from germany and close tie with heatler,
they are the most powerfull jews in germany, europ, israel, USA w/ties to CIA and intelegent all over the word,
there will never be a palastanian nation,
i agree with some of the views above,
Usa made billions of dollar in iraq and iran war,
// /// /// // // // // // quait war,
republicans are bad news,
i was born muslim, but i am not a practicing moslem,
i like vodka, beer, scotch, tequila, pork chop, blond, brunet, all kinds of women,
dont care about politics or religion,
the newest treat to socity is mind control in my oponion,
read jim keith book or alex constentine, mind control world control or other books on the subject,
i am getting of the subject,
its all politics.
who did i get suck in to this?
give me advise on my visit to DR.
mike mick thank you

 

[MommC]

Now,now...Janice...be nice!!

If you read your posts and my posts carefully you'll see that you have it backwards.

Battle of Britain was fought by British and Canadian aviators supplied by British and Canadian factories.....the US was nowhere to be found......in fact if Pearl Harbour hadn't happened I don't think the US would have joined the war effort. You see they had nothing to gain! As Jim would say "follow the dollar".....
Sorry I can't give you reference to exactly what materials the US were supplying to Germany during the early years of the war but I watched a US documentary on some of the materials that were released for public perusal. It was about 10-15 yrs ago so I don't remember the details (you really must excuse my failing memory- old age ya know!!). If I remember correctly though it was about the same time the "real" Lucky Luciano story came out and I believe the documents came be found at the National Archives or possibly the Library of Congress.
It also wasn't I who said the US didn't do much in WWll....I've never said such a thing. Actually all I've said is Americans tend not to acknowledge what everyone else did BEFORE they got involved.

The US was not threatened by Germany until well after we entered the war in support of England. Hitler was not foolish enough to open a Trans Atlantic front with the US, he had enough problems with Russia.

And I suppose it wasn't German subs that were patrolling the US coast virtually undetected? Or perhaps you never heard about the one that was in the St.Lawrence Seaway? Or just outside of Halifax harbour??(now how far is that from the US coast anyway???).

My remark was about England and the US supporting one another, NOTHING else, you have AGAIN taken off on one of your "well if Canada was involved" tangents!

I've taken off on an if Canada was involved tangent???? Seems to me you've taken off on an ONLY THE US COULD HAVE DONE IT tangent.......Ask the English and the Dutch and the French if Canada was involved! Also when did Canada get involved?

It's a good thing Canada doesn't wait as long to get involved when it's a matter of saving lives or all those aircraft coming in over the Atlantic and Pacific on 9/11 would have crashed into the oceans and many more lives would have been lost.

Also if you read all my posts you'll see that I bash Canada almost as much as you seem to feel I bash the US. I've yet to see you find fault with anything American.......

Now the subject is Hate and the role of the superpower......
Is the US as a superpower generating hate? Yes.....hence 9/11
Was the US to blame? No......It was the people who perpetrated the event and those who indocrinated and financed them.
Could the US have prevented it from happening? Probably not....where there's a will- there's a way and the perpetrators certainly had the will and found the way.

Should Iraq be attacked??? That depends.....are they really as much of a threat as Bush makes them out to be? Can you justify invading Iraq to "remove" their "weapons of mass destruction" capabilities while leaving the Isrealies with those same capabilities? Will an attack on Iraq generate even more Hate in the Arab/Muslim world?


What do you think Mick?? Thanks for your comments....I at least appreciate hearing them!

BTW-AZB.....it was an Atom bomb! so you were incorrect in the type of weapon of mass destruction used.

 

[AnnaC]

Oh my God! How do you people expect peace when you can't even get along here on a little message board.
Azb I'm really interesting in knowing where your FIRST hand information comes from. It must be first hand because I don't care what newspaper or radio station or TV station it is, they all lie.I want to know where you got your figures on the hundreds of thousands or millions that where killed in Iraq. I have friends that their families watched the missles fly overhead in Bagdad. They all survived. Most escaped through the hills of Iraq and stayed in Turkey. They didn't shoot them at the border.It's not just one or two families by the way it's a whole community of them and I'll be happy to have them get in touch with you.

Oh I saw Elvis today at 7/11.

 

[Ken]

Re: Now,now...Janice...be nice!!

Should Iraq be attacked??? That depends.....are they really as much of a threat as Bush makes them out to be? Can you justify invading Iraq to "remove" their "weapons of mass destruction" capabilities while leaving the Isrealies with those same capabilities? Will an attack on Iraq generate even more Hate in the Arab/Muslim world?

Your posts overlook one important fact. BUSH IS NOT, REPEAT IS NOT, PROPOSING AN IMMEDIATE ATTACK ON IRAQ.

What he is saying is that Saddam Hussein has had 11 years to comply with the terms of the agreement he signed to end the Gulf War. Specifically, he is required to give the UN weapons inspectors free rein in determining whether he possesses any weapons of mass destruction and in destroying any that they find.

But for 11 years Saddam Hussein has, through one means or another, prevented the weapons inspectors from doing their job. Consequently we have no knowledge of,whether he has weapons of mass destruction. He says he doesn't but won't permit verification by the inspectors.

During these 11 years, the UN has adopted 16 resolutions requiring Iraq to permit "free and unfettered access" by the inspectors. Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the UN each time.

So what should we do? Permit Saddam Hussein to continue to thumb his nose at the UN and proceed, as he chooses, with his weapons' development program?

Bush for one thinks not. He believes that the UN must stand up to Saddam Hussein and require free and unfettered access by the UN weapons inspectors.

Therefore, says Bush, if the UN is unable to make Saddam Hussein open all of its doors to the inspectors, then the "US and some its friends" will do the job for the UN.

Why hasn't Saddam Hussein permitted the UN weapons inspectors to have "free and unfettered" access? Why has he prevented them from entering any of his 32 palaces and the headquarters of his army? Would he be ignoring UN resolutions and putting roadblocks in the way of the inspectors if he didn't have something to conceal?

Why does the UN permit Iraq to ignore its resolutions demanding free access by the inspectors? Is it no more than a debating society? Now, more than ever, we need a world body that will preside over an increasingly troubled world. Can the UN fill this need if it allows a nation like Iraq to act in a manner contrary to the mandates of the UN and the interests of the world?

The US doesn't want a war with Iraq and the consequences for its young men and its economy that such a conflict will entail. Iraq says it doesn't want a war, either. Fine. All Iraq needs to do is to open all of its doors to the inspectors, including all 32 palaces, the headquarters of the Guard, and any and all other locations that the inspectors want to inspect. No restrictions for reasons of "national pride". No restrictions for reasons of "sovereignty". All doors.

 

[MommC]

Minding my P's & Q's

Before I get jumped on again here's a URL for those interested. It is the Honour Roll for the Battle of Britain and you will note there are 5 Americans on the roll.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html

Of the many Canadians listed on the roll several are from the 401 Squadron which for many years was based in my hometown in Northern Ontario.

Now Ken re

The US doesn't want a war with Iraq

there have been reports in the media that the US has been actively planning just such a war for at least two years preceding the 9/11 attacks. And many of us know that a war is good for the economy because of all the "related" jobs that it produces. Many of us also believe that the only reason Bush has not yet attacked Iraq is due to the lack of support for his proposal from allied countries.
What are your thoughts on this??

 

[Mannheim]

I understand the US policy was to be "neutral" in 1940, but from Chennault in Chna to "Advisors" and oil in England, the States played a substantial role in supplying Britain in the early going of the War. It is well documented if not for the lend lease Act of 1941, England would have succumed to Germany quickly as they had simply run out of raw material and factories to produce what they had on hand


KM

 

[Mannheim]

It is a popular misconception that war produces jobs, when in fact today's war is a drain on the economy

During the World Wars production of war material was paramount, but todays military has little need for increased productions as supplies are allocated years in advance

KM

 

[Ken]

Re: Minding my P's & Q's

Now Ken re there have been reports in the media that the US has been actively planning just such a war for at least two years preceding the 9/11 attacks. And many of us know that a war is good for the economy because of all the "related" jobs that it produces. Many of us also believe that the only reason Bush has not yet attacked Iraq is due to the lack of support for his proposal from allied countries.
What are your thoughts on this??

Re the newspaper reports, sure there has been speculation. Certainly there has been no end of speculation on CNN. I would be very, very surprised if the Defense Department didn't have task forces preparing war plans for a number of possible eventualities, including Iraq. If it isn't doing this, it isn't doing its job in my opinion. That doesn't mean the US wants to go to war with the subjects of its planning efforts. Rather, it wants the US to be prepared in the event there was such a war.

If a war with Iraq would be so good for the economy, why is the stockmarket reacting so negatively to the possibility of war. The Dow Jones average dropped about 250 points today, largely because of worries about the possibility of a war.

Re what many of you believe, it is pure speculation and nothing more. The fact is he has gone to the UN and asked the UN to either meet its responsibilities or declare itself irrelevant and let others do the job for it. What is unreasonable with that?

Could WWII have been avoided had the world acted when Hitler began his expansion campaign? Is 11 years and 16 UN regulations defied enough tolerance toward Saddam Hussein?

Most nations have declared that the UN inspectors should have free and unfettered access to Iraq. There is little disagreement about that in the UN. What the debate is about is whether the wording of what will be the 17th resolution should include that this time there must be no games, no roadblocks, no interference with the inspectors or there will be harsh consequences. Bush thinks this language should be in the resolution, and so do I. After 11 years and 16 defied resolutions, there is evidence to indicate that Saddam Hussein only responds to a credible threat of consequences.

What I don't understand is why there is even any debate about including "or else" language in the resolution. The only reason there would be an "or else" would be if he interfered with the work of the inspectors. The language is meaningless if he is serious. So why not include it, just in case resolution #17 is no more effective than the previous 16?

 

[Mannheim]

Not Registered

It's a matter of wording, Nuclear Fission took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a true "Nuclear" bomb is simply a Fusion reaction producing Hydrogen with far greater energy than a fission bomb

They both produce radioactive decay and "fallout"

KM

 

[MommC]

Excellent response Ken.....

and I believe you've made a very good point. What's the use of a resolution without spelling out the consequences of failing to comply with the resolution. IMHO the only reason it hasn't been added yet is that the UN doesn't think the resolution would pass if there were consequences attached to it.
Is the UN a "worthless" body as many have suggested? Quite possibly....keeping in mind that one of it's reasons for being is to promote world "unity" and consensus. Maybe it's time for the UN to re-invent itself as a body that would arbitrate things such as human rights, acts of aggression etc. along with measures that would "balance" the world resources so as too stamp out poverty,disease etc. Is this too large a task? I think so.....

 

[Ken]

I believe you've made a very good point. What's the use of a resolution without spelling out the consequences of failing to comply with the resolution. IMHO the only reason it hasn't been added yet is that the UN doesn't think the resolution would pass if there were consequences attached to it.

Why wouldn't it pass? That is what I don't understand. If the UN is serious about having Iraq comply with its resolution, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by including "or else" language in the resolution. If it can't stand up to Saddam Hussein, it will never be able to do all of the other things that we would like it to do for the world.

I think the best chance the UN has to avoid a war with Iraq is to include the "or else" language. Some diplomats are saying Iraq must comply, but let's wait until they interfere with the inspectors before we deal with what to do about it. If this were the first resolution, that would be a very logical position. But after 16 have been defied without consequences?

It's not much different than raising children. The parent who always says don't do that every time a child misbehaves, even if he continues to engage in the same unacceptable behavior, is not likely to have much success in changing the child's behavior. But the parent who makes clear to the child what the consequences are if the behavior is repeated, and who the child believes will follow through if the behavior is repeated, is generally quite successful in producing a responsible adult.

 

[MommC]

Too True........

however I can't envision the other Arab/Muslim nations agreeing to a resolution with "or else" consequences attached. It would seem too much like they were siding with the Non-Muslim nations against a "brother".
If only one could truly separate religion from politics it would make life so much easier for every nation in the world. Look at Ireland! How much of what has happened there has really been "religious" in nature and how much is purely politics?
And how much can any nation "force" compliance on another nation. Iraq can always say it need to be able to defend itself against it's enemies.....Is the UN willing to guarantee that it will keep Iraq "safe"? Is the rest of the world willing to open their borders to "outsiders" for any number of "justifyable" reasons?
There are all manner of "reasons". For example here in Canada the native population claim human rights violations....should we let the UN tell us how to manage our country? Is the US willing to be told by the UN how to "care" for its citizens? Can the UN mandate clean water and health care for all in the DR? Would it be able to put a stop to political corruption and ensure justice for all according to the laws of the individual countries?
Just where does the line get drawn? or does the US think it could in time become a potent enough superpower to "rule" the world? Would the UN be able to do that??? Would the world want the UN to "rule"?
?????????????

 

[mondongo]

Oh my God! How do you people expect peace when you can't even get along here on a little message board.

That is absolutely correct Anna. The problem here is that we have so many people talking and no-one listening. Pages upon pages of diatribe and no one knows what the other person is talking about. Each side should submit a SHORT list of 2 claims.....stay on topic and debate those claims until resolved...then you can move on to something else..what is happening here is just an example of closed, cluttered minds.

 

[Pavan]

I think the US is now into this game just like the countries they were playing with.

Now they are paying the price of playing with fire. People die in both worlds, the suffering is the same. The only difference is that death of this nature is more publicized in the media in the US whereas in a poor country the person is buried and the world never knows about it.

So if the guy who walked your dog every Sunday was killed in the WTC event it is no different to the guy who sold Pita bread on his donkey in the gulleys of Jerusalem and was killed by a stray bullet....or a family wiped out by a stray bomb or even the three kids and mother killed by a careless van driver.

Are Americans more prone to complaining???

 

[mondongo]

Now we are all experts on nuclear physics...

Atomic...Nuclear (Nukelar if you're Pres Bush)....its the same damn thing....an atomic bomb and a nuclear bomb are the same damn thing...both are types of nuclear explosions----fission (japan) and fusion...are nuclear explosions...fission splits the nucleus....fusion fuses two hydrogen nuclui to make a helium nucleus...


THE USA HAS OF COURSE DROPPED A NUCLEAR BOMB.....you boob.


What is confusing you...is the term thermonuclear which is often applied to the fusion type of bomb (a.k.a Hydrogen Bomb)....and the term atomic bomb has been traditionally used for the fission bombs dropped in Japan...

man, everybody thnks he's/she's a frigging Einstein...but not me, of course