My thoughts on things here and there

Damn feeko, what does BC bud have to do with you guys being the worst killers on the planet, errr I meant to say terrorists. You guys kill indiscriminately, Mosques, wedding receptions, police force, CHILDREN, oh yeah, how could i forget, yourselves. Just because you use a million dollar missile to do it don't mean shiznit.

I will agree, lookin out for your own is a priority. But when you go above and beyond "lookin out for your own" and reach the point of "serving self interest at someone elses expense" well thats when problems are created. Like the New Iraq.

"life aint fair....and that wont change anytime soon"
Is that what you would tell an Iraqi woman that lost her 3 kids to a JDAM? Theres is a reason that it isn't going to change anytime soon, its called USA. If you actually tried to get along with people in a fashion that would promote "world unity" as opposed to "american interests first" then we as a race could progress, and things would change.

[quote="Robair don't worry about it mike, check out some of Johnnys other posts, he's an idiot. Or at least he plays one really well in the forums.[/quote]

Johnny's good at playing an idiot the same way Chris Farley was good at playing a fat guy.

I lurk around here quite a bit, and couldn't help but throw in my two cents here. Now, I'm an American, and I guess that gives me a bit of perspective. Don't get me wrong, I admire Canada and am more than aware of the glaring flaws of my country, but I think there's a few flawed arguments (attacks?) in this thread.

First off, it's a bit off base to clump "Americans" into a single group. To allege "Americans" live in constant fear of being killed, or to say "Americans" are "brainwashed" is about as valid as me saying all Canadians are fur-trapping, aboot-slinging dolts who can't keep their damn country together. It's absolutely absurd. Granted, there's a fair number of Americans who live in dangerous environments, and there's more than a few Americans who don't know anything about their government. Altogether, we've got more than our fair share of dumbasses. Truthfully though, I'd have to say they're in the minority. God knows it doesn't look that way; the voice of a cluelessly-uniformed nationalist is almost guaranteed to drown out a more moderate one.

Regarding the two party system, it's important to realize that neither the GOP nor the Democrats have homogenous leadership, let alone homogenized bases. More importantly, their views evolve over time. Compare one party now to itself fifteen years ago. It's completely different as a result of the people demanding it to be so. The two party system doesn't serve to drown out all but two political voices. For the most part, it speeds up the legistlative process. (Which is good, as the rest of our government is among the slowest, most ineffective bureacracies in the world.) The two party system is far from perfect: voices of extreme dissent have little power against the voting blocks. All things considered, however, it's a decent way of representing the mainstream. Looking at other countries, there seems to be few better alternatives and a hell of a lot of worse ones. (In my opinion, a two party system is a good thing for a legistlature, a bad thing for an executive election.)

Regarding the rigging of presidential elections, there really isn't anything in the way of solid proof. Conspiracy theories are bound to hound any contested event, and after seriously looking into most of them, they're circumstantial at best, absurd at worst.

Regarding Bush, a lot of intelligent people voted for him ( regardless of his piss-poor speaking skills) because he initially surrounded himself with smart people with solid reputations. God knows after pissing away the international support we gained after September 11th and waging a war on false grounds, those same intelligent people will be voting quite differently. (On a side note, I'm a firm believer that Karl Rove is currently the commander in chief.)

Which leads to Iraq... In a nutshell, a lot of us Americans had enough faith in our president accept his allegations regarding Iraq as fact. If those allegations were in fact true, I'd say war was worth the costs we are paying now. Obviously, they were false. Many, including I, believed the President because we weren't cynical enough to imagine such a gigantic breach of trust. Hell of a way to disenchant an entire nation. On a side note, the notion that we went to war for oil is completely flawed. If we had wanted to get cheap oil, we could have lifted sanctions on Iraq. However, if you want to accuse the president of trying to install a Mid-East government that suited his liking, then you're in the right ballpark.

On a side note, I think it's odd when people call the war "unconstitutional". Call it unjust, call it reckless, call it a travesty, but calling it "unconstitutional" simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the US Constitution. Undermines a point, anyway.

...

Anyway, that's my American perspective. Though I'd honestly prefer to live in Canada, I feel the need to explain the more inexplicable actions of my country. Hell, as much as it pisses me off, I still love the place.

And yes, the US is a republic.

Good points there Uhmurrcan. One thing I have to semi-disagree with you about there is the Oil topic. I mean, he secured the Oil first. Thats a sign. The thing that I agree with you is the "US friendly" government he's going to install.

What I mean is, even though everyone more or less knows he wants the oil, he could never have it without a complete occupation or even perhaps take over of Iraq. So, if he sets in this new "US friendly" government (We all know how the US friendly governments turn out, at least the ones created by the US) he can have a strong hand on the Oil there for a good bit of time, without anyone being able to do anything about it.

Thats my view anyway.

According to the U.S. government,Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves.The U.S. is an OIL DEPENDENT nation.SUVs and trucks are the top selling automobiles year after year.We consume a considerable portion of the world's energy and resources.Saudi Arabia has never been a good solid ally;they've just used the U.S.,and vice-versa over the years.Apparently after 9/11 we've decided to no longer maintain a major presence there.Iraq is a good place to set up shop,regardless of what's best for the people of Iraq-if they get a semi democratic government out of the deal,then that's just a bonus.Better for us if it's another dictator that we can control though.

Perhaps you guys are right, though in my view, the Bush Administration is too jingoistic for such a calculated move. With oil, lifting sanctions on Iraq would be much, much more economically worthwhile than lauching a hundred-billion dollar invasion.

I'd think securing the oil wells first was a primarily tatical decision. Nearly all of our tanks, planes, bombs, etc. have some sort of infared or laser guide system. The Kuaiti oil fires from the last Gulf War played havoc with them. Anyway, I honestly think if we were in a dire oil situation, we'd start kissing Russia's ass. They've got quite a bit of oil themselves.

On a side note, it isn't just the US going for the oil. Last I heard, Russia and France's (prewar) oil contracts with Iraq are being allowed to grow, presumably so they send their money over there for the reconstruction. Of course, that doesn't justify the US's role there.

With Saudi Arabia, well, that's a bad situation. They're a corrupt government that we're forced to pander to. Not much else we can do with them holding obscene amounts of US Treasury notes. Our economy wouldn't be doing too well (nice euphenism) if they dumped them.

About the oil thing...I've never doubted for a second that the invasion of Iraq was about oil. It wasn't about oil for the US though...Bush and his oily little buddies don't really care about the US...it was about corporate profits for Bush's supporters and about being able to keep American troops in the area to further support those corporate supporters. That was made very clear when Bremer began privatising things and changing laws so that foreign companies could walk away from Iraq with 100% of their profits...no investment, no real help for Iraq.

Changing those laws is illegal under international and US military laws od occupation, by the way.

I think the invasion itself was justifable in that Iraq had done more than enough over the years to provoke a war. Also because that none of the countries in the region can really be trusted to administer the oil themselves in light of the massive and permanent harm they caused to the world economy with the oil embargoes of the 1970s.

The lies and incompetence shown by the Bush administration on the matter are just unbelievable though.

The Invasion was justifiable... Just he tried to justify it by the wrong means.

Rev_Blair, I've heard about what you've mentioned regarding the changing of laws, but only in vague terms. Do you think you could link me to a site with the specifics?

If the war was indeed for the sake of human good (which certainly wasn't [entirely] the case), then in that sense, the war was more than justifiable. Perhaps I'm selfish, but what isn't justifiable to me is seeing my countrymen and other foreign soldiers dying daily in an ineffective attempt to fight an overblown threat.

That said, the UN should have intervened in regard to the inhumanity of the Baath party long ago. God knows it's too damn ineffective to do anything, though.

Maybe I'm naive, but I do believe some good will come out of this. I honestly think after the occupation ends, Iraq will have at least the potential to become a better place.

The biggest scandal in Canadian government history is going down and you people are still more concerned with the US?!?

What does it take to get you people to realize that we've got our own huge problems?

Besides, these same crooked and ciminal Liberals have been getting in on about 35% of the vote for years.