• If you currently own, previously owned or want to own an Avalanche, we welcome you to become a member today. Membership is FREE, register now!

Canadian Views And/or Support For USA

sparky

SM 2005
Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
2,707
Location
Calgary, Alberta ? Canada
I have posted a topic on the thread 'US War on Terrorism' and wanted to mention it here. This may not be considered 'correct' and if so the moderators can tear it down. However this was the only place that had any kind of Canadian theme to it.
First I should state clearly that I am not happy in how Canada has handled itself through our leader. I believe Canada should have shown much more support.

There is a website set up by a bunch of Canucks to allow you to express these views, if you have them.http://www.wesupporttheusa.ca

Hope I have not broken too mant rules

 
I agree with you guys here. I am also very unhappy over our government's position. I went to that site yesterday and signed it.

I hope there are alot more of us out there ready to support the U.S.
 
There are many variables to consider with this issue and everyone will have a slightly different opinion and they are welcome to it.

While I understand that the issue on the web page and with the supporters in general is not 'pro-war' or whether Canada should be part of this war, it skates the line quite precariously. It is difficult to support a country that is at war with someone and still claim that you are not supporting the war. It is similar to encouraging the school bully beating up another student and yet claiming you are impartial to such actions and do not support it. It is very close to being two-faced about the issue in question.

I am not sure what to make of the issue in the Middle East at the moment. But in acknowledging my ignorance, I also realize that going to war is not the solution. If I cannot get a handle of everything that is going on, I am not going to go to war while I continue analyzing the situation. Thus, I do not agree with military action in such a conflict. And in line with my previous statement about being two faced, I am not going to support a country doing something that I myself do not agree with.

It is obvious I would not make a good politician but I enjoy being able to sleep at night and be comfortable with my own conscience. (And before someone mentions being comfortable with my conscience while atrociaties are being committed in Iraq by their leader, I realize this. I believe there are ways to change this as well without military action. I simply despair at how the only large-scale action the U.S. puts effort into is war.)

This is just my two cents, of course, but two cents that I strongly stand by.
 
You are free to believe what you want, but if military action is not the answer what is?

1. Sanctions have not worked, Iraq has had limited trade for 12 years since the end of the Gulf War. Mad-A$$ still lives high on the hog, while most of his countrymen are starving.

You will say we have the same problem here in the US, but the government does not control the distribution of food, water, clothing and all other goods the U.S.

2. Do you think inspections will work? Did you ever hide anything from your parents as a child and not get caught. That was in their house, this is a whole country, you can hide a lot of stuff in a country the size of California. You would never be able to find everything because as you found something they would just make some more and hide it some place else.

There is only one-way to end Mad-A$$?s control of chemical factory?s that can and may produce biological weapons; his financial contributions to the families of suicide bombers who attach Israel or US targets; his ethnic cleansing of Kurdish and Shiite people in his own country; plausible and probable support of terrorist camps in his own country. The job of the President of the United States, or political leader of any country for that matter is to protect and defend the people and interests of his or her country. If you feel your country is safe from terrorist fine. But remember the terrorist that were arrest crossing into the US a couple years ago, they are in Canada also. Who knows what they will do to you.

The world sat back and let Hitler do many of the same things Mad-A$$ is doing now and looked what happen in Europe. Not only did he destroy countries, he indirectly let to the separation of families to do the spitting of Berlin and Germany, the rise of the ?Iron Curtain? and the creation of a nuclear arms race. All of which create decades of unease all over the world.

The UN is going is now similar to the fail League of Nations. The countries involved lack the fortitude to back up the resolutions passed. They would rather sit around a table and ?talk about the problem? than actually solve the problem. Mad-A$$ needs to be removed from power. There is no other way to stop his silent attack on the none hard line Muslim countries.
 
GRF said:
You are free to believe what you want, but if military action is not the answer what is?
I already mentioned that if the U.S. were interested in putting as much money into other avenues that they might have made progress that way. $75 billion is a lot of money to send a lot of people into a country to search for something. If my parents had a fraction of that, even what was proportional to the size of my bedroom compared to Iraq, I think they could have found things.

GRF said:
There is only one-way to end Mad-A$$?s control of chemical factory?s that can and may produce biological weapons; his financial contributions to the families of suicide bombers who attach Israel or US targets; his ethnic cleansing of Kurdish and Shiite people in his own country; plausible and probable support of terrorist camps in his own country. ?The job of the President of the United States, or political leader of any country for that matter is to protect and defend the people and interests of his or her country. ?If you feel your country is safe from terrorist fine. ?But remember the terrorist that were arrest crossing into the US a couple years ago, they are in Canada also. ?Who knows what they will do to you.
They were in Canada, destined for the U.S. Granted, they shouldn't have been there to begin with, and reforms are making this less likely. But the fact remains that every terrorist who was found to be in Canada was destined for the U.S. This says a lot about U.S. foreign policy that you have so many people dying - literally - to get into the U.S. and wreak havoc.

There is significant evidence that chemical weapons may be found. Thus far, there has not, but it is likely they might find something. What I am really concerned about is what would occur if, for example, none are ever found? The U.S. will simply go 'oops' and back out slowly. That is why they added getting rid of Saddam to the list of reasons for this campaign. But if that were the only reason, there are plenty of other countries being oppressed by similar dictators that are far down on the list.

Oops, they don't have oil.

GRF said:
The UN is going is now similar to the fail League of Nations. ?The countries involved lack the fortitude to back up the resolutions passed. ?They would rather sit around a table and ?talk about the problem? than actually solve the problem. ?Mad-A$$ needs to be removed from power. ?There is no other way to stop his silent attack on the none hard line Muslim countries.
While most would find the prospect laughable, something the U.N. could be found legally able to do is impose sanctions on the U.S. for their actions. I say laughable because no one would do it. They would ignore it just like the U.S. ignored the U.N. I am not saying what the U.N. has done is right, but the U.S. has not been playing fair either. Let's be honest with ourselves here.

I think what it all comes down to is truthfulness. While going to war over oil is not something many people would condone, I think far more people would agree with a war if the government at least acknowledged that it has some impact. People would rather here them mention oil as a slight reason than to simply assume and then add more government lies to the top of it.

In the end though, it all comes down to what I previously said. Justified or not is not for me to decide. But while people accept Bush's judgment and feel it is right, I accept my prime minister's judgement and feel it is not. And as such, I am not going to support something that goes against that judgement.
 
I also suport the Action In Iraq! I believe our brothers to the south are doing the work no one want to do but must be done! (y) He had 12 years ot get with the programme. His time has come....

As far as the decision of the Canadian Gov :D:

God speed to the brave men and woman in the Gulf! (y)

NatsCanAv
 
I support the troops and the country...the only thing that i do think is that it should have been done the first time.....I have numerous of my best friends over there fighting at this time and it scares the hell out of me that they may not make it back.........................lee
 
I'm a Canadian...

I support the US' pre-emptive doctrine...

Our federal Liberals say they don't support "regime change"...

Well, the world has changed and that Liberal policy is out of date; they may have to explain that at the next federal election.

Criminal regimes can not be left alone in a global community; they're not going to close their borders to protect the rest of the world from themselves; we're at risk; it's simple - we have to right and our governments have the duty to protect ourselves (and their people) from a criminal regime.

Canada should have supported it; I did.
 
Back
Top