[ChuckElias]

Canuckref, I wanted to email you, b/c this conversation probably doesn't really belong in this forum; but I didn't see an email link for you. So I'll have to post this here, but I'll keep it short (I hope ). I'm not a knee-jerk "My country, right or wrong" kind of guy, but I wanted to make just a couple comments on your post.

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
I believe the majority of the U.S. does not agree with this war

I think that you might get that impression from some of the news coverage of the daily anti-war demonstrations; but polling data by fairly neutral companies (in other words, not commissioned by the Republican Party) shows support for military action by 70% or so of Americans. And that's even if the action is not backed by the UN. I saw that figure last night, although I apologize that I can't quote you the source of the poll.

I will say that most of the people I know up here don't think much of ole George Dub-ya.

I'm sure that's true, since one of your government officials (MP Carolyn Parrish) recently said, "Damn Americans, I hate those b@stards." I have no problem with that. One person's opinion. I think that there is a large perception that President Bush is just an idiot, as Jeff put it. He's stupid and in way over his head. Even referring to him as "old George Dub-ya" has a connotation of a country hick sittin' on the front porch of the town store. But I personally think that is an easy characature used by critics and unsympathetic media.

It's very similar to the characature of former President Clinton as the womanizing philanderer, who would have sex with anything that moved. Both are based on a small grain of truth (Bush's college grades, and Clinton's affair with Monica), but are overblown and accepted simply b/c it's easier to do than to see the person as a complex individual.

Let's just say your country's duplicity in this matter (and Afghanistan, for that matter) leave me skeptical about the real reasons for this war.

Again, I'm not so naive as to believe that the US gov't hasn't slanted its facts to make the best possible case for itself. But whatever duplicity has been used in this country cannot possibly be compared to that used in Iraq. At least, I don't think so.

I don't believe it's as simple as "war for oil", but it's definitely not because Iraq is a threat.

Frankly, I just don't see how it's possible for anyone to say that Iraq is NOT a threat. Iraq is, in my opinion, an obvious threat in several ways. First, they have shown in the past the willingness to invade another country without provocation. So they're obviously a threat to their neighbors. Second, the gov't there used chemical weapons on its own people when they attempted to rebel after the Gulf War. (The US's failure to help those rebels is the real shame of that conflict.) So, Iraq is a threat to its own people. And we know that they still have those weapons, b/c their soldiers have them right now in the battlefields.

Iraq is much more of a threat right now than Serbia ever was. But President Clinton sent troops there to remove Milosovic without UN approval, and the results were not the horror that many predicted.

The ties to terrorists are, I think, murky and haven't been proven very well. But I don't think you need those ties to show that Iraq is a threat. Is it enough of a threat to invade? I don't know that personally. But I assume (I hope to God) that the US gov't has information that it has not made public to show that it is enough of a threat.

My hopes and good wishes go out to your Armed Forces.

I appreciate that, I really do. I think that, like you, we all hope for minimal loss of life on all sides. That will be more likely if we see mass surrenders, as has been reported will happen. But that could easily be a ruse.

Our Prime Minister refuses to commit military support unless the U.N. mandates it, a position I support.

And I respect your support for your own gov't, as well as your government's right to do what it sees as best for the safety of its people. The problem with the UN mandate is that at least one country has said that it will veto any resolution that calls for use of force. So what's the point of going thru the UN? It's a non-starter. Even if the whole UN supported it, it would be vetoed. If you want to talk duplicity, I think Germany, France and Russia bear examination.

Well, I guess this whole post is based on a lie, anyway. I said it would be short! I hope that this post is seen as respectful debate and not as bashing anyone or as jingoistic propoganda. If you want to talk more, please feel free to email me, as I think Brad would rather not have this topic clogging up the board. Very sincerely,

Chuck


[Edited by ChuckElias on Mar 19th, 2003 at 09:02 AM]