Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

[Peter Parka]

lol The US removed a nasty dictator and is trying to set a democratic government. Do you honestly think the US means to make Iraq the 51st state?

Pretty much, yes.

 

[gLing]

Pretty much, yes.

LMAO you mean like was done with Japan or Germany? Maybe the Philippines?

 

[Peter Parka]

LMAO you mean like was done with Japan or Germany? Maybe the Philippines?

What's that got to do with anything?:confused

 

[gLing]

What's that got to do with anything?:confused

The US does not have a history in the past 100 years of incorporating invaded territory.
Despite popular belief, Iraq will not become the 51st state nor will it become a US territory.

 

[Peter Parka]

The US does not have a history in the past 100 years of incorporating invaded territory.
Despite popular belief, Iraq will not become the 51st state nor will it become a US territory.

Ok then, but it's still a fact that the US is imposing it's own kind of government on Iraq. Back to the point though, why would you have a problem with US and Canadian troops on each others territory for an emergency and agreed to before hand by both countries but not have a problem with the US troops on someone elses territory illegally?

 

[gLing]

Ok then, but it's still a fact that the US is imposing it's own kind of government on Iraq.

Of course. An elected government. Surely that is better than one impose by a dictator yes?

Back to the point though, why would you have a problem with US and Canadian troops on each others territory for an emergency and agreed to before hand by both countries but not have a problem with the US troops on someone elses territory illegally?

It isn't needed.
Trying to compare US troops in Canada during an emergency with US troops taking out a sadistic dictator is silly.
I am not sure why you even tried to compare the two situations.

 

[Peter Parka]

Of course. An elected government. Surely that is better than one impose by a dictator yes?

And you believe it's the US governments right to decide that? If every country did it, the whole world would be at war!

It isn't needed.
Trying to compare US troops in Canada during an emergency with US troops taking out a sadistic dictator is silly.
I am not sure why you even tried to compare the two situations.

I take it you feel the New Orleans disaster was handled satisfactory then?
What harm would having more help do anyway? It's not a silly comparison because it would involve troops being on another countries land. The difference is, one lot would be there soley to aid while the other are there uninvited in a war.

 

[gLing]

And you believe it's the US governments right to decide that? If every country did it, the whole world would be at war!

When the US enforces the cease fire agreements then why not? Do you think it is wrong for a people to choose their own government? The US allows the people of Iraq to do that.

I take it you feel the New Orleans disaster was handled satisfactory then?
What harm would having more help do anyway? It's not a silly comparison because it would involve troops being on another countries land. The difference is, one lot would be there soley to aid while the other are there uninvited in a war.

The New Orleans disaster was a complete failure on the part of local governments. Sending in Canadian troops would not have changed anything.
And yes silly comparison. I'm sure the Iraqis just hate having some kind of say in their government without the fear of Saddam's wood chippers.
Stupid Americans! How dare they give them that!

 

[All Else Failed]

Yes good idea. I'm sure Canadians would love to see US military on their streets in a disaster. :smiley24:

If they needed them to be, then whats the big deal? I would certainly hope Canada would help us out in a situation where we needed such support.

 

[Peter Parka]

When the US enforces the cease fire agreements then why not? Do you think it is wrong for a people to choose their own government? The US allows the people of Iraq to do that. [quote/]

Regardless of whether you think it's the right way to go it's wrong because it gives other countries the same right to impose their way of doing things on other countries.

The New Orleans disaster was a complete failure on the part of local governments. Sending in Canadian troops would not have changed anything.
And yes silly comparison. I'm sure the Iraqis just hate having some kind of say in their government without the fear of Saddam's wood chippers.
Stupid Americans! How dare they give them that![quote/]

So why didn't America support the uprising by Iraqi's after the first Gulf war and wait till now to decide to change things? An overthrow of a government is surely better when it's led by the country's own people.

 

[gLing]

Regardless of whether you think it's the right way to go it's wrong because it gives other countries the same right to impose their way of doing things on other countries.

Not really. Do these other countries in question going to keep hypothetical territories or no?

So why didn't America support the uprising by Iraqi's after the first Gulf war and wait till now to decide to change things? An overthrow of a government is surely better when it's led by the country's own people.

That is called politics. No that does not make it right in any way. The US has a history of making promises it does not keep.
But again why is it bad to remove such a corrupt and oppressive government?

 

[Peter Parka]

Not really. Do these other countries in question going to keep hypothetical territories or no?

Sorry, think it's the way you've worded this but I can't understand this.

That is called politics. No that does not make it right in any way. The US has a history of making promises it does not keep.
But again why is it bad to remove such a corrupt and oppressive government?

It's just politics? That's very vague and really isn't any kind of answer. The US has a history of making promises it does not keep? So why does this give them a right to say how other countries which are nothing to do with them should be run?

 

[gLing]

Sorry, think it's the way you've worded this but I can't understand this.

It is very simple. You said the US invasion of Iraq opens the door to other countries to do the same. Ok, do these other countries when they invade have the intention to free the invaded nations from an oppressive dictatorship?

It's just politics? That's very vague and really isn't any kind of answer. The US has a history of making promises it does not keep? So why does this give them a right to say how other countries which are nothing to do with them should be run?

It is the answer no matter if you like it or not. That is just how it is.
These rights you talk about do not exist in war. When you see a nations being brutally oppressed does the free world need some kind of right to free that nation? Do you think those that are oppressed choose to be that way?
If the UN was worth anything it would champion the removal, by any means, of such monsters like you saw in Iraq and see N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.
Everybody gets so mad at the US because they actually did something.
"It's all because of oil so those oppressed Iraqis do not deserve any freedom at all. Stupid american war mongering oil grabbers!"

 

[All Else Failed]

Um, our intentions were never to free the Iraqi people

 

[gLing]

Um, our intentions were never to free the Iraqi people

Of course not! Does that really matter? I mean we did not invade a free nation after all.

 

[All Else Failed]

Of course not! Does that really matter? I mean we did not invade a free nation after all.

I think our intentions really do matter

 

[Peter Parka]

It is very simple. You said the US invasion of Iraq opens the door to other countries to do the same. Ok, do these other countries when they invade have the intention to free the invaded nations from an oppressive dictatorship?

Who are these countries invading other countries because they don't like the way things are run there? The only people I see doing this right now is the US and her allies. Whether you agree or not with their system, I fail to see how you can justify unproved invasion, but only if the US is doing it.

It is the answer no matter if you like it or not. That is just how it is.
These rights you talk about do not exist in war. When you see a nations being brutally oppressed does the free world need some kind of right to free that nation? Do you think those that are oppressed choose to be that way?
If the UN was worth anything it would champion the removal, by any means, of such monsters like you saw in Iraq and see N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.
Everybody gets so mad at the US because they actually did something.
"It's all because of oil so those oppressed Iraqis do not deserve any freedom at all. Stupid american war mongering oil grabbers!"

No it isn't an answer, it dosen't explain anything and is a cop out. I'm sure you wouldn't be satisfied that I had answered why invading Iraq was wrong by using the answer, "It's just politics". Oh and seeing you brought it up, why do you think your government chose to invade Iraq then and not these other countries you mention?

 

[gLing]

I think our intentions really do matter

So that is going to matter to the free Iraqi who can now vote and talk smack about the baathist party without being shoved into a wood chipper for it?

 

[gLing]

Who are these countries invading other countries because they don't like the way things are run there? The only people I see doing this right now is the US and her allies. Whether you agree or not with their system, I fail to see how you can justify unproved invasion, but only if the US is doing it.

Not even close to the truth lol. If the US invaded nations based on the fact they do not like the way they are ran then you would see global war.

No it isn't an answer, it doesn't explain anything and is a cop out. I'm sure you wouldn't be satisfied that I had answered why invading Iraq was wrong by using the answer, "It's just politics". Oh and seeing you brought it up, why do you think your government chose to invade Iraq then and not these other countries you mention?

It is the exact answer. Think about it, the US invade Iraq why? It was an easy political target after 911 because of it's years of defying UN resolutions and it is loaded with oil.
Assuming none of that is true. Would America still be evil if they went into Iraq for the sole purpose of freeing those people?

 

[Peter Parka]

Not even close to the truth lol. If the US invaded nations based on the fact they do not like the way they are ran then you would see global war.

So why do you keep bringing this reason up as to why the war was right?:confused

Assuming none of that is true. Would America still be evil if they went into Iraq for the sole purpose of freeing those people?

I'll allow you to answer your own question...

If the US invaded nations based on the fact they do not like the way they are ran then you would see global war.