ClumsyMonkey.net

because the rest of the world more than likely wouldn't just stand by and let Canada get invaded. I know I'd pick up a gun and kick some ass if they tried to invade us.

Easy. They have no other reason for attacking us. In Iraq they could say they were going after Saddam. What kind of excuse would they have for attacking Canada?

You are totally missing my point. My point is that with Canada having more oil reserves than Iraq or Saudi Arabia the oil argument against war is invalid. The US and Canada are on great economic terms. It bolsters the Bush's reasoning for war. Its not the oil, its about humanity. We could get all our oil in this hemishere, why go to war for it?

Like he said.......there's no excuse.

actually America it's been semi-common knowledge that through our entire existance America hasnot only been our greatest ally but also our greatest threat. America is the only country that has ever posed a serious military threat to Canada, now in our century they've given up military mean but still employ tactics that are turning us into the next state from the inside

Venom wrote:You are totally missing my point. My point is that with Canada having more oil reserves than Iraq or Saudi Arabia the oil argument against war is invalid. The US and Canada are on great economic terms. It bolsters the Bush's reasoning for war. Its not the oil, its about humanity. We could get all our oil in this hemishere, why go to war for it?

and your missing the point of others when they say the US went to war for oil..
the reasons you stated, to eleviate the suffering of the folks of iraq is fine and dandy EXCEPT there are plenty of OTHER repressed people out there who are DYING for similar reasons as the Iraqi's yet, who's countries are poor in many ways and are NOT being helped by the Americans.. whats wrong with them? are they any less "human?" no. .theyre poor

exactly

As well if they invaded Iraq they can put the people they want in charge of the place, and easily make deals benefitting themselves. Even though Canada is right next door, they'd still have to bargain with us, and probably not get as good of a deal.

Very well put.

and your missing the point of others when they say the US went to war for oil..
the reasons you stated, to eleviate the suffering of the folks of iraq is fine and dandy EXCEPT there are plenty of OTHER repressed people out there who are DYING for similar reasons as the Iraqi's yet, who's countries are poor in many ways and are NOT being helped by the Americans.. whats wrong with them? are they any less "human?" no. .theyre poor

The US can't do everything. If the UN would do its job they could be of some help to address the needs of people elsewhere. Iraq had WMD in the past and it was thought they still did (and may have) so they posed a bit more of a threat to the world than countries in Africa, etc.

It's funny how you blam the UN for not helping the US do something that the UN told the US not to do.

The US isn't invading Canada because it would be pretty moronic to try to play us up as an evil nation.

It's funny how you blam the UN for not helping the US do something that the UN told the US not to do.

The US isn't invading Canada because it would be pretty moronic to try to play us up as an evil nation.

You again are missing my point. I did not blame the UN for not helping us in Iraq, I'm blaming them for not acting on any of the other atrocities going on around the world. The UN seems to have forgotten why they are. The group was put together to keep the peace and to act together against tyrants, and human rights violations. Take Bosnia as an example. It took years for pushing by the US to use force against the Serbs. The peacekeepers were not the answers. The Serbs knew that they wouldn't and couldn't stop them. Finally the NATO used a bombing campaign to halt the violence. It took two weeks to stop the Serbian violence, but the UN allowed it to go on for more than four years! The US is the only country willing to put its own troops in harms way to uphold what the UN is supposed to stand for!

As far as invading Canada I was pointing out that there is plenty of oil in Canada that could suffice our needs for years that we could get in trade. There wouldn't be any cost in transporting it here like there is from the Mideast. The Iraq war is NOT about oil. We can get oil from right here in our own backyards.

You're missing our point though. North Korea has admitted to their nuclear program. ANd they've treated their citizens just as poorly. Why didn't the US attack them? They pose a larger threat than Iraq did.

This leads to oil, and the Bush's attachment to the stuff. Bush doesn't know a lot about the world, but he does know that the middle east is an oil filled paradise. By giving "freedom" to Iraq, it allows him to go in and make deals. "Remember how I saved you from the evil dictator? Ya, how about as a thank you, we make a nice deal."

Considering Can/Am relationships haven't been the best recently (war, legalization of marijuana, timber, border security) It makes perfect sense.

and venon.. werent you the one who argued the UN is a waste and it, as an organization should be abolished or something along those lines?

North Korea is not a threat. They are just too big for their britches. Not doing anything about it eh? Tell that to the thousands of troops still stationed in S Korea TODAY to protect them from N Korea! A war that ended 50 years ago. The big difference with Iraq is that there are resolutions in place. Resolutions that have been in place for 12 years and still being broken. Iraq had their chance and the US had a contract to uphold. As far as I know, there aren't too many concerning N. Korea at this juncture. And like I said, they are just looking for attention and trying to blackmail the US into giving them more stuff. So right now they are getting their chance. The same chance that Iraq was given and blew. Don't worry... North Korea will be dealt with eventually.

You're missing our point though. North Korea has admitted to their nuclear program. ANd they've treated their citizens just as poorly. Why didn't the US attack them? They pose a larger threat than Iraq did.

That is a little bit more of a tricky situation than Iraq. We knew Iraq didn't have nukes yet, North Korea does and they have the means to deliver them to the west coast of the US. In my studies of North Korea I have found (and Corey is right) that North Korea likes to use things to get what they want, however I also believe that if invaded Kim Jong Il (as a last resort) will use the nukes he has. He will have nothing to lose since his reign will be over and thats all he knows. That is the last thing the United States wants. Right now we are in a battle of wills with the North and its gonna be a waiting game to see who budges first. I already believe the US has promised more than enough and shouldn't promise anymore, otherwise he'll play this game again (for a third time) in the future.

and venon.. werent you the one who argued the UN is a waste and it, as an organization should be abolished or something along those lines?

It is a waste because it doesn't uphold its responsibilites. Bosnia/Kosovo is only one example. What did I say that made you think otherwise?

so if the US was so certain Saddam had WMD wouldn't that have been the case for Iraq as well?

the U.S. would never attack Canada... ever... it just wouldn't happen. The U.S. is in control of much of our economy right now, all they would do is go buy out our oil companies and take over our economy like they do with everything else...

he's got it right there, not to mention we've already been shafted by the NAFTA

so if the US was so certain Saddam had WMD wouldn't that have been the case for Iraq as well?

Ummm no! Iraq doesn't have missiles that could even get close to reaching the US. As for the troops on the ground they had chemical/biological suits that would have protected them for the most part.