The War May Be On But:

[nfotxn]

Maybe I should start collecting proof the war on iraq is very economically motivated? Can you believe this? It's almost open admittance that the US is planning how to rape and pillage Iraq after the war. Also Bush wants to further undermine the UN after the war by bringing only American business interest into the country. I can understand the thinking: we fought the war so we get to reap the rewards. Of course it's going to be absolutely necessary give how much war is going to cost the American citizens.

And you wonder why Canadians are "bad neighbours" by not aiding the USA in this insanity? This war represents such an amazing retrograde in world politics I can't even begin to put it into words, there would be so many. So many dimwits talk about "repairing America's image post-war". Well, let me tell you step 1: STOP TAKING OVER FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR THEIR RESOURCES. That makes you look like a real buncha jerks.

Don't even get me started about your foreign policies towards Canada lately. The attitdue towards international trade is so piggishly patriotic and ignorant to the realities of trade. In the case of our lumber being subject to unreasonable tariffs.. oh, maybe ours cost less because CANADA HAS MORE TREES?!

My dearest American friends, this is not the time to be patriotic. This is the time to THROW THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT OF WASHINGTON.

---

NOTE: Oh it feels so good to have vented that. This is a heated entry and I will probably get heated responses. Please understand that by the time any comments come in I will have cooled down by then.

Comments

[intheinterlude.livejournal.com]

THIS IS A TIME TO BE CANADIAN,

right?

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Please be a little more concise. That could be interpreted as full of passive/aggressive meaning.

[intheinterlude.livejournal.com]

I'm not passive/aggressive.

People who are stereotypically passive/aggressive are complete losers.

[mathan.livejournal.com]

*GRIN* I laugh at this though. 3G wireless technology, which had some acronym as CDMA-W or something like that (it's been a while since I've seen the acronyms) is actually closer to GSM in nature than CDMA.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Turns out this is actually just more lobbying. The representative putting this forward happens to be from the same juristiction as Qualcomm, owner the CDMA patent!

Religion & Politics or Business & Politics, what's the difference?

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Please do? I'm totally about being a good neighbour when you guys are doin' the right thing! Go America, screw those fuckers! Woo!

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

OK, so it's about economics. What major war hasn't been?

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Oh this comes as no suprise but really what I'm trying to express is that the cards are face down now. Yet so many people are still swallowing the jingoism. WTF?

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

You would be hard pressed to argue that the Korean War and the Vietnam War were economically motivated.

I respectfully disagree with Brodie--I don't think this is economically motivated. Yes, there's a lot of oil, and yes, Bush is an oilman, but one cannot argue that there's a causal link.

I see this as more a return to the activism of the Reagan administration, where most of the Bush Administration's key players cut their teeth. There was a shift from the old doctrine of containment of Communism to a new philosophy of rollback. This led to such adventures as the Grenada invasion, as well as direct support of anti-communist forces in Nicaragua, Angola, Yemen, and other places around the world.

It is a moralistic war as well, and this confounds many people that do not have morals as a central driving force in their lives. I think many outside the US don't understand how much morals and the concept of redemption drive George W. Bush. The concept of a moral arguement is, well, a foreign concept to most in the developed world, as religion (in particular) since the second World War has greatly declined in importance in everyday life. But not so in God-fearing America.

[loganbeary.livejournal.com]

Oh if only my mother had gone the extra 3 miles north to Canada before she went into labor with me. Then maybe I could at least pretend to be Canadian.

I'm not the least bit patriotic. :ob

Still, for some reason whenever I see some idiot jerk driving around with a flag they have sticking out of their window or the back of their pickup, ripping it to shreds due to the fact they're subjecting them to gale force winds constantly, I peeved.

It's not because I care about the flag being destroyed in such a unseemly manner. Its just because if I were to roll up to a stop light next to them and set a little flag on fire they would get very upset with me. Yet, how is it any different? They destroy their flag by force of wind and dirty road water, I by fire. They do it in the name of patriotism, I do so with anger. They're truly ignorant that their actions desecrates the very thing they so proudly display, I do so knowing full well what I do.

I haven't actually done this, because I know the lesson would be totally lost upon them, so why bother risking hostilities?

As far as removing the Washington Fools, I personally am powerless to do anything about them. My vote doesn't count, matter, or make a difference.

Maybe Canada will invade the U.S. and remove our terroist regime from power for us? We'll give you food for oil, or better yet, food for hot bear sex. Please?

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

As far as removing the Washington Fools, I personally am powerless to do anything about them. My vote doesn't count, matter, or make a difference.

That is completely untrue. By thinking so you fulfill your own prophecy. In order for a democracy to work everyone must believe that their vote is worth something. That's real patriotism.

Maybe Canada will invade the U.S. and remove our terroist regime from power for us? We'll give you food for oil, or better yet, food for hot bear sex. Please?

I'm sorry to say that our shitty military could maybe take of Hawaii... maybe. But if you insist on having hot bear sex, well who am I to refuse?

[darke.livejournal.com]

Well, let me tell you step 1: STOP TAKING OVER FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR THEIR RESOURCES.

"I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in"

-Secretary Colin Powell, in repy to the former Archbishop of Canterbury
http://www.immigrantsforamerica.com/powell.world.economic.forum.speech.html

I really wish he'd run for president. Sadly, the old saying is true. Those most fit for it, will not want that power.

So the war has an economic side to it. What war hasn't? While you're collecting proof of economic movements in this war, why not look at the economics of others. It's always been there, this isn't some big new thing.

It boggles my mind that people think we're spending 70-100 billion dollars to fight a war just so that some companies can make a billion here and there. Sure, our politicians aren't always the brightest, but I'm sure they can do better math than that.

As for democracy.... It represents the masses. Not the individual. Surprising as it may seem, the masses were in favor of this action. Dimpled chads or not, the race was still close enough that it's easy to say that a good portion of those masses *wanted* Bush as a leader. The media's fascination with the protesters presents a very skewed image of public thought. Right now, polls are showing the majority of people in support of this war and President Bush. You can smile and wave and say they are all brainwashed....but that's sort of silly. Just because the masses want something different from you and I does not mean that they are incapable of thought. Democracy is great for representing lots of people. Not so good at individual voices. Probably one of the reasons freedom of speech is so valued here. Without it, we'd never be heard inside those faceless masses.

[(Anonymous)]

Aaron Says:

Argueing that the economic side of things is completely irrelavent seems to be a bit of a red herring. Conflicts of interest are just that, conflicts of interest. The fact that the whitehouse is lining up contracts while telling us all this is a morilistic war is hypocrasy no matter how you slice it. I think it was already posted here that wars like Korea or Veitnam and, if any, much much smaller economic motivations.

Now while a agree you can't just throw a "you're brainwashed" fit everytime you're not in the majority of public opinion, I don't think that's an arguement to completly write off the power of the propaganda machine. And while fox news and CNN beat the war drums, we still get whiney complaints that the peaceniks are misrepresenting the public with their passionate actions.

My question? Why shouldn't this stuff be covered in it's entirety? I mean I'm sorry, but if I put that much effort into my political expressions I think it should bloody well be heard. So it's a minority? So what? We still know what the polls say. If these protesters are able to influence public opinion in any ways, I say that's a victory for democracy, not a tradegy.

As arrogant as it may seem, I honestly believe I know more about the world affair than most. I mean, I've taken the poli sci courses, I read articles on this stuff for hours every day. If I'm going to attend a protest rally (which I have) and speak (which I havn't) the goal would be to expand the public education of the state of the world so as that it may change - because I honestly believe that my view of the war is the more educated one. This isn't robbing people of thier opintion, but allowing them to make a better informed one. If they still choose to disagree with me ,after having listened and considered what I have to say than I'm willing to accept that. You have the right to your opintion - you do not have a right to your ignorance.

not all americans ...

[(Anonymous)]

the mainstream media would have the world believe that all us citizens believe this is the war of the righteous. well, it's not true. bush is a incestuous, perverted, backwards-thinking, ignorant, oil-bred, good-for-nothing war monger.

the only wonderful thing about the whole situation is the knowledge that he's going to be another one-termer.

-efesar (http://www.efesar.com/blog)

Re: not all americans ...

[grrtigger.livejournal.com]

the only wonderful thing about the whole situation is the knowledge that he's going to be another one-termer.

I sincerely hope so. What I'm really wishing right now is that after all the almost-scandals that have followed the Bush administration he will carry too much political baggage to win a second term. Seriously, those people frighten me.

[theotherqpc.livejournal.com]

My dearest American friends, this is not the time to be patriotic. This is the time to THROW THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT OF WASHINGTON.

there's patriotism, and then there's "patriotism." "patriotism" is flying 200 little flags all over the place and tearing up at every one of Dubya's "God Bless America"'s. patriotism, on the other hand is upholding the ideals of your country, exercising your Constitutional rights, and giving a nod to the founders of the nation.

Throwing dear ol' Shrub outta the White House - regaining freedom of speech, freedom of the press, separation of church and state...not to mention replaying the event that led to the USA's creation: oppressive and distant ruler defies wishes of citizens, citizens overthrow ruler.

of course, as we all know, "patriots" have a hold over the newsmedia....

[scottbear2000.livejournal.com]

My biggest epiphany during this whole mess was to not BLINDLY follow one side of this issue or another. There are so many reasons for and against this war, that it's very difficult to see this as a black & white issue.

I honestly believe that ultimately, we're doing the right thing because Saddam Hussein is downright evil. The brutality of his regime and inhumanity towards his own people is infamous. BUT I believe that shrub is going about this whole thing in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. I still believe that this whole war is a distraction from domestic issues. I believe that he's wrecking the US economy and the US reputation and pushing back any progress that we've made as an international community.

To be BLINDLY pro-war, because it's the "patriotic" (and I'm referencing the last entry here) thing to support, is stupid, thoughtless, and wrong. However, to be BLINDLY anti-war because movie stars and the Pope tell you that war is wrong, is just as stupid, thoughtless, and wrong. When the circumstances warrant the use of force, and there's a majority support for it (both domestically AND internationally) then war is a necessary thing which can ultimately be "good".

I believe that shrub has opened up a real can of worms here, and the world - especially the US will suffer for it. In my own opinion, we should have done this 12 years ago, and by not supporting internal Iraqi uprisings at the time, allowing Saddam to crush revolt ruthlessly, we doomed ourselves to this war. This war was going to happen sooner or later, but should have happened sooner when we would have had more international support.

Evil

[(Anonymous)]

We can start finding "evil" left right and center in the political world. But we don't hear of going to congo to get Kagame, the US has defended Sharon, and we keep finding excuses for the chinese communists. I mean come on here....

I mean, I wouldn't dare say I like the guy, but I mean if we're going to talk about religious or celibrity propaganda, let's take a look at the language. "Evil" the word itself has arguably been the most propagandic in all of history. I know it has a meaning, and in this case it may be true - I just hestiate to use it as a stamp.

I'm not saying government reform in iraq isn't nessisary, but I say listen a little bit more to the iraqi people. Earlier one of the posts pointed out the err in drawing automatic casual links. Well how about the one where liberation = war?
-Aar

[jbear70.livejournal.com]

we should have done this 12 years ago

While I agree with most of your points. I would have to say that hindsight is 20/20. At the time of the Gulf War, the mandate given to the US and coalition forces was to liberate Kuwaitt, not to topple Saddam Hussein. You made very eloquent points about dishonesty of the current Bush Administration and the importance of building support domestically and abroad. But as I recall at the time of the Gulf War the US had no mandate to enter Iraq and topple Saddam. I think international support back then would have dried up as much as it has today if the US would have gone into Iraq without a mandate from the UN.

Read

[etherlad.livejournal.com]

Bröd, others...

Read this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm/), via CNN.

Seriously.

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

"STOP TAKING OVER FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR THEIR RESOURCES."

OK, we'll go back to taking over foreign countries for ideological reasons--i.e. Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Korea...

There, better now? :-)

[tommybear.livejournal.com]

Quoted from the CNN article linked just above...
"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."

It's statements like these coming from our president that drive the ever lowering opinion level down in my mind...did anyone happen to catch him speaking along side Tony Blair last night? It was horribly pathetic to compare the speaking abilities of Tony Blair, an excellent politician (oxymoron?) in my mind, and the blatherings of Dubya.

I guess if we can't all make a mass exodus for Canada, can we get the UK to send us Tony Blair to lead when we get Dubya out of office? Hmm...I guess he was swayed by Shrub to fight this war as well, maybe that isn't such a good idea...the US is a pretty big gun to the head though...

The indications of economic plans for the abuse of Iraq (or should I say McIraq?) are becoming quite clear....

[etherlad.livejournal.com]

The US is a pretty big gun to the head.

But Canada managed to say no. And we are the US's largest trading partner, and vice versa.

[scottbear2000.livejournal.com]

The CNN article on the brief history of this whole endeavor was really refreshing. I understand that the media isn't as unbiased as it could/should be, but I thought this was a good, detailed overview of the events leading up to this war. It certainly explains a lot of things to me.

Perhaps I don't necessarily like shrub - I think he's a rotten president with regards to domestic issues as well as having bungled diplomacy. And I certainly don't agree with the "neo-conservatives" point of view as described by the article, but there's a saying I've heard for years, and the peace movement, the human rights movement, and many christian churches (respectable ones, mind you) have used it as well. It never really clicked until now, because it was always used in the context of protest issues like "free Mandela", "free South Africa", etc.

The quote says, "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT JUSTICE".

Well, what are we sacrificing to maintain what we think of as "peace"? Saddam is a brutal dictator. He's murdered TENS OF THOUSANDS (if not hundreds of thousands) of his very own people, AND he has had and USED (and may still have and may still use, /but that's debatable) WMD's, which he could sell/give to terrorists to use against the US, or Canada, or the EU, or any target. How can we allow this man to continue to terrify his nation? And for that matter, how can we tolerate other governments like his? Why aren't we going after every brutal regime that bases its rule upon terrorizing it's population? (Israel, this includes your treatment of Palestinians...) Why doesn't the United Nations TRULY work for real and lasting peace by destroying all these brutal regimes around the world? Until ALL lands are democratically ruled, there will never really be peace, nor justice.

Since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, diplomacy has failed with Saddam Hussein. It's just that nobody wanted to deal with it. It looks like France and Russia have been trading with Iraq against UN sanctions (gee... I wonder WHY France & Russia are so against this war?) And Germany's Chancellor made campaign promises to keep Germany out of any hostilities and he's sticking to his promises (imagine a politician doing that!). After 12 years of failed diplomacy, it's time to finish the job and live up to the threats we've been giving Saddam since day one.

And I agree with Alex, folks. If you have a huge list of why you would rather be Canadian, then MOVE THERE. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Either choose to work with what we have, and try to change things by paying attention to what our elected leaders are doing, and vote accordingly, or just leave.

Don't just sit there complaining. It's eally getting annoying. EVERY government is guilty of corruption & stupidity. The US is not alone in that department. My biggest fear is of losing my civil rights as an American citizen because of fear, and a willingness by the general population to give them up in order to feel more secure. If that should ever happen, then I'll be packing my own bags and leaving for Canada, too!