Political Crossfire Forums

[Whyme]

Locke_ wrote: The question is COULD Canada indict Bush without a U.S military response?

of course

[Golddave]

Whyme wrote: Locke_ wrote: The question is COULD Canada indict Bush without a U.S military response?

of course

nO F**K** WAY!

[ChaseNorth]

I'd love to see Canada try...

[D@N]

ChaseNorth wrote: I'd love to see Canada try... ]
Me to!!!
:-D

[Chronic Thinker]

I wouldn't like to see it. Ottawa is too beautiful of a city to be leveled over a minor foreign policy dispute. :lol:

[Locke_]

Whyme wrote: Locke_ wrote: The question is COULD Canada indict Bush without a U.S military response?

of course

:lol:

[Golddave]

It would be lights out Canada if they tried. Even the UK wouldn't help them or Australia.

[DEFCON 1]

Golddave wrote: It would be lights out Canada if they tried. Even the UK wouldn't help them or Australia.

Because of the French connection ??

[Golddave]

DEFCON 1 wrote: Golddave wrote: It would be lights out Canada if they tried. Even the UK wouldn't help them or Australia.

Because of the French connection ??

Yep, not a big fan of the frogs.

[Boondoggle]

ChaseNorth wrote: It's not irrelevant - its also not a second war but a continuation of the first. And an armed Iraq is a threat to our allies in the region. Hussein had demonstrated his contempt for international law. He invaded two countries at the cost of millions of lives (Iran - Iraq War, Kuwait Invasion), he launched Scud missiles into two more (Saudi Arabia and Israel), used chemical weapons on the Kurds and committed large scale massacres against the Shi'ites. This is documented by both the UN and human rights groups.

It is irrelevant because it is a second war. George H.W. Bush ordered General Norman Schwarzkopf to end the war, the paperwork was signed, and forces were pulled out. Resolution 678 was designed to liberate Kuwait, and that was done.

Those other countries you refer to are more of a threat to Iraq than vice versa. Saudi Arabia is a major US arms buyer, and Israel is the most powerful in the region with nuclear weapons. Iran was more powerful than Iraq in the Iran-iraq war, and still is. On the other hand, much of Iraq's military equipment was destroyed in Desert Storm and with sanctions Iraq could not rebuild a force that would challenge those other countries.

Hussein did use chemical weapons, but he got the material for both his chemical and biological weapons from the US, and was provided intelligence to hit targets too.

Sure Iraq fired Scud missiles, but Iran also attacked Kuwaits ports and fired missiles into Kuwait in the Iran-Iraq war, and Iraq worked with Kuwait.

As for the Iran-Iraq war, there were many reasons for it, but two top reasons are as follows: first, just a year before the shah of Iran was overthrown, which lead to the islamic revolution, which talked about expanding. Roughly 60% of Iraq's population is Shia, and they share the same ideology and theology as Iran, which is cause for concern in Iraq. Even the US was concerned about it, which is why they wanted to make sure Saddam didn't lose, and ignored the fact that he was using chemical weapons. Second, Iran and Iraq have long had a dispute over the Shatt al Arab waterway. In 1975, Iraq signed a treaty called the Algiers accord under pressure from the US backed Iran with the Shah in power. In return, Iran ended support for the Kurdish rebellion. However, Iraq never liked the agreement, and after several border conflicts, Iran and Iraq started what was called the tanker war (in which they attacked oil ships). Considering the waterway is of economic importance to both countries and that the shah was overthrown, this was also reason for concern. While Iran was attacking just about any ship in the area and attacking Kuwait, Iraq directed its attacks mainly towards Iran.

By 1982, just two years after the Iran-Iraq war started, Iran pushed Iraq out of it's territory, and Iraq was looking for a way out of the war. However, Iran pushed into Iraq, and Iraq struggled for the following six years, which is why it ended up using chemical weapons, and was supported by the US. However, this didn't stop the US from playing both sides, which lead to Iran-Contra.

I suggest some reading here:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war1.php
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Bogus information was released for Desert Storm just like the forged documents, etc for the second war. Kuwait was also over producing oil, which dropped oil prices, and hurt Iraq's economy while they were recovering from a war and had a lot of debt. There were other issues as well, and the US could have made a stronger stand against Iraq before Kuwait was invaded. Instead, April Glaspie (US ambassador to Baghdad) told Saddam that "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Quote: And name me the violations outside of Iraq.

Read the part of the article that talks about Jordan. here's another example: http://www.maherarar.ca/

Quote: Guantanamo is not in breach because the detainees are considered illegal combatants - not prisoners of war.

I see so it's perfectly alright to hold people without rights or charges regardless of whether or not they are guilty or innocent. As long as you can play with words, and it isn't you in that position, it's ok.

ChaseNorth wrote: Boondoggle wrote: That is completely wrong. The US, and they admitted to this, used the weapons inspectors to spy on Saddam to try and gather information to overthrow him in violation of the UN mandate, which was to disarm not regime change. This undermined the inspections process because you cannot expect someone to be very cooperative with inspections of security sites when your objective is regime change.


You have any evidence to back that up?

Certainly:

UNSCOM used to spy and operation Desert Fox

The Boston Globe January 6, 1999: US Used UN to Spy on Iraq, Aides Say
Washington Post January 17, 1999: The Difference Was in the Details
The Guardian March 3, 1999: UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq
Myths About Iraq Exploited by War Hawks

I also recommend a documentary called In Shifting Sands (available on edonkey) which has interviews with UN weapon inspectors, and video footage of the inspections in the 90s. It shows the confrontation that lead to operation Desert Fox (Iraq was willing to allow inspectors in to the site under the agreement called modalities for sensitive site inspections)


Quote: I seem to remember Iraq signing a treaty saying they would verifiable disarm and then they didn't...

I seem to remember that in order to consider Iraq disarmed, they insisted on inspecting security sites, and that the US has been playing around with regime change instead of disarmament.

Quote: the terms of the cease required verifiable proof of the absence of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons.

The weapons inspectors managed to verify 90-95% destroyed. This included 100% of the manufacturing facilities. In addition, Iraq said it did destroy some on it's own, which they may have done, but if the inspectors couldn't verify it, they wouldn't give'em credit for it. Add to that messy paperwork and it makes it pretty hard to get 100%, However, Iraq's chemical and biological weapons had a shelf life of 3-5 years under ideal storage conditions, and nothing in Iraq is ideal. Iraq never had nuclear weapons, but if you look in Israel you'll find some.

Quote: Should another country illegally (in the eyes of the US) detain an American president with the intention of prosecuting him for supposed war crimes, the American military would not plan a hearts and minds campaign. There would be no rebuilding. The air force along with special forces would take care of the problem very quickly.

LOL Please...spare me the immature threats. Like I said, I'd be happy just keeping him out of the country. Further, if Bush was removed from power, that'd mean Cheney would take over, which would be business as usual given that he probably runs the show anyways.

What I find interesting is that a reporter brought up this article in the White House press room, and they totally dodged the question about war crimes and the ICC.

[BMG_THE_TARANTELLA]

Golddave wrote: Saviz wrote: Ye, we can't charge him... however some protestor could blow his brains all over his wifes new blouse...

I'd like to see some dumb s**t try, the secret service will kill that F**K**.

If I wasn't lucky enough to be there and get to him first.

[BMG_THE_TARANTELLA]

Your links to your sources are the most blatantly agenda driven
crap rags in the world. Boondoogie.

I'm not interested at the moment to take ten seconds and point out your
20 other mistakes and misleadings.

[Boondoggle]

BMG_THE_TARANTELLA wrote: Your links to your sources are the most blatantly agenda driven
crap rags in the world. Boondoogie.

I'm not interested at the moment to take ten seconds and point out your
20 other mistakes and misleadings.

You fail to refute so you have to resort to smearing because you don't like the message. If you had a clue about the subject, you'd be able to explain what exactly is misleading or a mistake instead of trying to dismiss it all wholesale as such without any explanation. Maybe you didn't notice that it's sourced, and the information that you call misleading and a mistake is on the record. Take the article about the US and the Iran-Iraq war, for example, which uses 155 sources. Then there's the arming Iraq article about WMD material being sold to Iraq by the US, which uses the Congressional Record, NY Times, Financial Times of London among others. Do you even bother to check these things, or are you too lazy to do that too? With UNSCOM and Desert fox, I gave multiple flavors so you wouldn't be able to b*tch if you don't like one news source, but there are others. If you don't want to face anything that'll challenge your preconceived views, that's your prerogative, but it's not wrong simply because you don't like it.

[loyalist]

But, could the US even sucessfully invade Canada? I mean, this is a well-trained first world army we're talking about, the US Army can't even handle f***ing Iraq! It wouldn't be pretty, but I doubt it would be all too sucessful.

[Chronic Thinker]

loyalist wrote: But, could the US even sucessfully invade Canada? I mean, this is a well-trained first world army we're talking about, the US Army can't even handle f***ing Iraq! It wouldn't be pretty, but I doubt it would be all too sucessful.
A pretty ignorant statement, at best.

The invasion of Iraq went faster and was more successful than many of the retired generals on the news networks predicted. Even in the nineteen months since the regime fell, the vast majority of the country has been peaceful and the casualties have been militarily insignificant. The claim that the United States "can't handle" Iraq is misinformed, at best, intellectually dishonest, in the middle, and an outright lie, at worst.

As for Canada, since they're our frikkin allies, I don't see why the hell they would arrest Bush, so the whole talk of a U.S. invasion of Canada is nothing more than flame-bait. But, just to throw my two cents in on the bait, the Canadians have virtually the same military technology that the Americans do, but far less of it, and far less manpower. It would be incredibly bloody on both sides (a little less bloody on the American side), but, in the end, the U.S. would win.

[loyalist]

Meh, I'm not arguing the possibility of Canada arresting Bush, that's a really.......well, stupid notion.

However, like Russia, Canada is terribly hard to invade and especially hard to hold. If the US managed to wn the conflict, it would be bloodier for the Americans.

[Golddave]

BMG_THE_TARANTELLA wrote: Golddave wrote: Saviz wrote: Ye, we can't charge him... however some protestor could blow his brains all over his wifes new blouse...

I'd like to see some dumb s**t try, the secret service will kill that F**K**.

If I wasn't lucky enough to be there and get to him first.

I'd take a bullet for Bush and I am not even American.

[Chronic Thinker]

loyalist wrote: Meh, I'm not arguing the possibility of Canada arresting Bush, that's a really.......well, stupid notion.
I'm glad we've found something we can agree on. 8)

loyalist wrote: However, like Russia, Canada is terribly hard to invade and especially hard to hold. If the US managed to wn the conflict, it would be bloodier for the Americans.
To begin with, your analogy is a little bit flawed. Invading Russia would be many times harder than invading Canada due to the fact that the vast majority of the Canadian population lives in the far south of the country, unlike Russia. Invading and holding the populated regions of Canada would be equivalent to invading and holding Ukraine, which several countries have done quite easily over the centuries that it was under Russian control.

As for the winner of a hypothetical Canadian-American war, the American military would quickly overrun the Canadian military, maybe not as easily as it did the Iraqi military, but it would still be a conventional victory. In terms of casualties, in guerrilla war (which is the only plausible way to fight the U.S. for an extended period of time), the guerrillas typically take most of the casualties. Guerrilla tactics never win wars by themselves, but rely on either outside intervention, as was the case with the French resistance, or loss of support for the war among the enemy population (such as Vietnam) to achieve victory. It is a poor military tactic, but an excellent political tactic. So, in the long run, it would be an extremely bloody war on both sides, but the Canadians would take the brunt of it.

Golddave wrote: I'd take a bullet for Bush and I am not even American.
I admire your bravery, but in this case, it would be more blessed to give than to receive. :wink:

[URallIgnorant]

Tough talk...unfortunately the US can do little more than take on little nations right now, and it isn't doing a very good job at that.

[Chronic Thinker]

URallIgnorant wrote: Tough talk... unfortunately the US can do little more than take on little nations right now
Dude, get over yourself. Seriously. No one was seriously talking about invading Canada. We were exploring a hypothetical scenario. Rather than even try make a legitimate contribution to the discussion, you spit out some childish, playground trashtalk. :roll:

URallIgnorant wrote: and it isn't doing a very good job at that.
Read my post on the last page and come back when you know what you're talking about. :wink: