I will remeber / Je me souviens

[Canada_rox]

Oh ignore me then

[MonteZuma]

...But because Australia was involved in the invasion of Iraq, I think that tips the balance to Canada.  In a few years I will re-evaluate.  Stay posted.

 

Ah yes i see where your comming from now. I had forgotten about that. You know I see that as you guys trying to get the world to give you attention. Thats probably really offensive to you, i'm sorry and maybe not accurate at all. And besides our countries values are different. I will look forward to your re-evaluation, although by then you might have to email me cus i might not still be on this.

I think Australia's involvement in Iraq was based on Australia's alliegance(sp?) with the US. The US did a lot for Australia in WW2 and our defense is still tied to the US. We have 235 million muslims living in an unstable country right next door. Sure...they may not have an air force or navy, but one day they might. Australia on the other hand is a country of 19 million peeps who like to surf and have bbqs and stuff like that.

 

So I think the Australian governments policy is to scratch Uncle Sam's back coz we might ask him to scratch ours some day. The main way that this was achieved was by Australia providing a small but substantial contribution that would have hopefully convinced uncommitted nations that there really was a 'coalition of the willing'. Its like saying 'hey...look...we are willing to put our bbq tongs down and fight for freedom....How about you cheese eating surrender monkeys pull your finger out too?'

 

Canada on the other hand has the benefit of living next door. Who'd mess with Canada when your next door neighbour has more nukes than everyone else combined? So Canada can afford to sit back and take it easy and just be a moral crusader - which is fine by me. The world needs more of 'em.

 

By the way. In what way do you see the values of Canada and Australia as different?

 

Monte

[Canada_rox]

...But because Australia was involved in the invasion of Iraq, I think that tips the balance to Canada.  In a few years I will re-evaluate.  Stay posted.

 

Ah yes i see where your comming from now. I had forgotten about that. You know I see that as you guys trying to get the world to give you attention. Thats probably really offensive to you, i'm sorry and maybe not accurate at all. And besides our countries values are different. I will look forward to your re-evaluation, although by then you might have to email me cus i might not still be on this.

I think Australia's involvement in Iraq was based on Australia's alliegance(sp?) with the US. The US did a lot for Australia in WW2 and our defense is still tied to the US. We have 235 million muslims living in an unstable country right next door. Sure...they may not have an air force or navy, but one day they might. Australia on the other hand is a country of 19 million peeps who like to surf and have bbqs and stuff like that.

 

So I think the Australian governments policy is to scratch Uncle Sam's back coz we might ask him to scratch ours some day. The main way that this was achieved was by Australia providing a small but substantial contribution that would have hopefully convinced uncommitted nations that there really was a 'coalition of the willing'. Its like saying 'hey...look...we are willing to put our bbq tongs down and fight for freedom....How about you cheese eating surrender monkeys pull your finger out too?'

 

Canada on the other hand has the benefit of living next door. Who'd mess with Canada when your next door neighbour has more nukes than everyone else combined? So Canada can afford to sit back and take it easy and just be a moral crusader - which is fine by me. The world needs more of 'em.

 

By the way. In what way do you see the values of Canada and Australia as different?

 

Monte

 

 

I can understand the way you aussies are thinking towards Iraq. It dosn't surprise me that i'm wrong. I'm glad i'm wrong.

 

Although you mentioned that we can afford to sit back while the USA handles things. Our view on Iraq is different to America. We don't like war and don't want to jump into it if we have to. (it costs millions and jean chretien already voluteered us to peacekeep afghanistan, we can't handle War and the peacekeeping missions were on) If the UN decides that we should go to war then we will back the UN and go to war. Although we might be friends with the US we don't always see eye to eye. We aren't sitting back and letting the US do our 'dirty work for us', its just we don't agree and its more affordable to keep out of it.

[MonteZuma]

Cool.

 

You know... if Australia had a Labor Government (main opposition party here), then Australia and Canada would probably have the exact same stance in relation to Iraq. We aren't that different. Peacekeeping is Australia's military specialty too.... But you probably already know this....

 

Monte.

[Aileron]

I was in favor to the war in Iraq. However, I don't automatically criticise nations who did not join the coalition. My standards:

 

If a nation stayed out for the same reasons as Canada did, I have no problem with that. They recognized that standing by itself removing Hussein from power would be a good thing. They just fealt that their country could not afford to wage a war at the time. That is a legitimate concern and I cannot critcise it.

 

The nations I hate though are the ones who did it for other reasons, such as France and Germany. Their motives for the most part stemmed from anti-US sentiment. If the US wanted the UN to stay out of Iraq, it would be likely that those two nations would be the ones trying to get us into it.

 

Not only is this at!@#$%^&*ude rude, but it is dangerous.

 

First off, it is causing the US to ignore the UN. Face it, the UN was never intended as a governing body as much as a forum for international discussion. It frankly is one nation's way of finding out what the other nations think. However, from the US perspective, the UN doesn't work anymore. We know that most nations will oppose us just for being on top, and that we cannot change their opinion. Thus, the UN has almost lost all purpose from the US perspective.

 

Secondly, this philosophy doesn't recognize modern threats. The "Balance of Power" foreign policy which France has had for the past 300 years became outdated with WMDs. Previously, the big country was the one to fear. Now, the country to fear is the small crazy country with nothing to lose, provided they had a nuke. Basically, the US is the least dangerous country because it has the most to lose and thus the least desire to use a nuke.

 

I know that was off topic. Sorry

[Bacchus]

If i remember correctly US was arguing that they had proof that Saddam had wmd and that knowing the dictator's stance toward US, a pre-emptive strike was justified. Thus, they brought the subject to the UN security council. They tried to back their say with proof which were not recognized by other countries on council as "hard evidences". Hence the council splitted in 2 factions: US and allies (mainly Brit) and the European front, mainly represented by France.

 

I saw Villepin criticized US foreign policy and condemning the fact that US was rushing the process. Then those against a military action tried to present other options, which were refused by US who was still pressing the matters onto a vote. They lost 9 to (i forgot), but the council majority was against it.

 

Then the US announced that they were going at war with Iraq. England quickly followed.

 

This unilateral decision was deemed as an error (and an outrage for a lot of ppl) and was proof that the US were implementing a policy which was endangering world peace balance.

 

Canada didn't approve because the it was respecting the council decision. We even tried the diplomatic avenue. US was non-negociable.

 

I have never see or heard France condemn or openly criticize US way of life alhtough they voiced their disagreement quite strongly...which is okay imo.

 

Then US changed french fries for freedom fries (wow, 5 f in a row) and threatened France with economical sanctions.

 

The rest is well known and if i can add one more thing:

 

They haven't found any WMD's to this day. US troops are being attacked everyday, there's civil unrest in Iraq and US still won't listen to anyone. Iraqis included.

US road map in Middle east is miserably failing and the present administration is being criticized by domestic representatives from both end of the political spectrum as much as world wide.

 

:roll: :?

[Manus Celer Dei]

peacekeepers?  is that the elite group?

 

I thought NZ had a really rad small but elite force

Our elite troops, the New Zealand Special Air Service, are currently serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

 

I ask you why do you start with changing the flag!?

 

 

Because our current flags (both Aus and NZ) have the Union Jack incorporated as a symbol of the authority of the crown. You may note that the republic members of the commonwealth (for example South Africa) do not. It's really only a matter of symbolism, such as changing the number of stars on the American flag to keep them in line with the number of States.

[madhaha]

Please keep this thread open so we can keep the rest of the forum clear for serious discussion.

 

This thread will never be off topic. It never HAD a topic. Its just another pro/anti america/military rant.

 

*lays a wreath to those who are supposedly being remembered by this thread*

*adds this thread to his ignore list*

[MonteZuma]

If a nation stayed out for the same reasons as Canada did, I have no problem with that.  They recognized that standing by itself removing Hussein from power would be a good thing.  They just fealt that their country could not afford to wage a war at the time.  That is a legitimate concern and I cannot critcise it.

Huh? No way. You cannot justify not going to war because it affects your country's balance of payments. If a war is needed than you just go ahead and do the job. The question is, was the war justified?

 

The nations I hate though are the ones who did it for other reasons, such as France and Germany.  Their motives for the most part stemmed from anti-US sentiment.  If the US wanted the UN to stay out of Iraq, it would be likely that those two nations would be the ones trying to get us into it. 

Well I don't think Germany's reasons were anti-US. They may have been economic, but I doubt it. I just think that they didn't want to go to war without UN approval - mainly because that is what the German people wanted. The French on the other hand? Perhaps they were thinking along the same lines as Germany, but you can't tell with them.

 

Not only is this at!@#$%^&*ude rude, but it is dangerous.

I think the dangerous thing is going to war without UN approval.

 

First off, it is causing the US to ignore the UN.

The US has been doing that for a long time. Long before 9/11

 

However, from the US perspective, the UN doesn't work anymore.  We know that most nations will oppose us just for being on top, and that we cannot change their opinion.  Thus, the UN has almost lost all purpose from the US perspective.

IMHO the biggest fault with the UN is the Security Council. There needs to be a fairer way making group decisions.

 

Basically, the US is the least dangerous country because it has the most to lose and thus the least desire to use a nuke.

Not everyone in every nation sees things this way. The US is an economic, cultural, political and military threat to every nation, especially poorer non-western nations with an uptight populations and a unstable government. Referring to nations as being part of an axis of evil highlights that threat. Much of what the US is doing is having a destabilising effect and making the world more dangerous place.

 

Monte.

[Canada_rox]

Please keep this thread open so we can keep the rest of the forum clear for serious discussion.

 

This thread will never be off topic. It never HAD a topic. Its just another pro/anti america/military rant. 

 

*lays a wreath to those who are supposedly being remembered by this thread*

*adds this thread to his ignore list*

 

 

If you have such a huge problem with this thread then don't go. I told you before remeberance day was coming up (but its today, but at the time it was comming) and i was just noticing the differences of back then and now. Yeah i suppose if you want to simplify its another pro/con for millitary. But regardless to what you may beleive this isn't specifically about the americans. And I don't remeber saying 'did you lose a loved one in the war' so stop bugging me about the !@#$%^&*le. Now don't make me repeat myself again and stay out if you have such a huge problem with this

[Canada_rox]

I ask you why do you start with changing the flag!?

 

Because our current flags (both Aus and NZ) have the Union Jack incorporated as a symbol of the authority of the crown. You may note that the republic members of the commonwealth (for example South Africa) do not. It's really only a matter of symbolism, such as changing the number of stars on the American flag to keep them in line with the number of States.

 

I wasen't really thinking when I said that. I meant that Australia had continually been trying to change they're flag (unsuccessfully, obviously). Then the year I was living there they jumped ahead to having a referendum about whether or not they should seperate from the monarchie of England. I just thought it was a little silly that they should do that, when they haven't even sucssefully been able to change the flag. And I was talking solely about Australia and not NZ.

[Canada_rox]

By the way I have no clue on how this got to be a disscussion on whether or not the US is right about Iraq and about the usefullness of the UN. Or even about fries.

 

*Don't bring the fries into this! They're innocent!*

[MonteZuma]

I wasen't really thinking when I said that. I meant that Australia had continually been trying to change they're flag (unsuccessfully, obviously). Then the year I was living there they jumped ahead to having a referendum about whether or not they should seperate from the monarchie of England. I just thought it was a little silly that they should do that, when they haven't even sucssefully been able to change the flag. And I was talking solely about Australia and not NZ.

Not really. There is occasional talk in Australia (last time was prolly >5yrs ago) about changing the flag to get rid of the Union Jack, but in the end nobody cares enough and it doesn't happen. As for becoming a republic, well, yeah, same story there....most people don't want change. Our system works well so why change it?

 

I think the Australian public is clever enough to know that the flag and the system of government are 2 separate issues.

 

The national anthem is yet another story......

 

Monte.

[Canada_rox]

lol Well i can't say i like the Aussie national anthem. I've never heard the NZ anthem. I like the France national anthem the best

[»dr uniburner]

if i had a nation, there national anthem would probbly be a bad religion song...yah i know i am kind of off topic, ignore this post are your discretion.

[Canada_rox]

lol

[Ancient Power]

Lol wtf, je me souviens doesnt even directly relate to rememberance anymore. It's more used for the quebecois who want to seperate from Canada.

[Bacchus]

It's not necessarily used by separatists (or nationalists), it's also commemorates the basic fact that we shouldn't forget our french heritage. Since culture is a temporal phenomenon...hence " i will remember"

 

as opposed to Canada " from coast to coast" which refers to space. We can still be a part of Canada from coast to coast and still use "i will remember".

[Canada_rox]

Lol wtf, je me souviens doesnt even directly relate to rememberance anymore. It's more used for the quebecois who want to seperate from Canada.

 

Don't be a smart -*BAD WORD*-. I know that. It can also mean its history (as i remebering their heritage). But directly translating I will rememeber is Je me souviens. They also use that for all they're posters about remeberance day. So think b4 you post something on this forum please

[Guest feef]

>>I think the dangerous thing is going to war without UN approval.<<

 

After WWI, the League of Nations was created to serve in a capacity similiar to what the UN does. And like the UN, it had one major flaw: it didn't have its own military force. It depended on the cooperation of its member states, which had their own agendas and self-interests--interests that were often at odds with other member states. Any preventive action was either stalled in political squabbling until it could no longer be considered a preventive action, or no action at all was taken.

 

WWII happened on LoN's watch. It was created to prevent just sort a thing from happening again, and yet it failed miserably. Hitler was a clear threat and yet nothing was done. And closer to home, under the UN's watch, a slaughter bordering on genocide happened in Uganda (I believe that was the place.) The UN had time to respond but those nations that provide the military and financial muscle wanted nothing to do with it so nothing was done until it was too late. You said it's dangerous to act without UN approval...well, I say to you it's dangerous to wait for it.

 

The UN is unable to make the tough decisions. It's crippled by non-consensus. Always has been, as was LoN before it. And while we were "waiting" for a UN decision, France had already ended the political debate by claiming they would veto no if any sort of deadline was imposed, i.e. all talk no action. Meanwhile, the US was paying through the nose for their garrison. -*BAD WORD*-ed if we do, -*BAD WORD*-ed if we don't.

[Canada_rox]

>>I think the dangerous thing is going to war without UN approval.<<

 

After WWI, the League of Nations was created to serve in a capacity similiar to what the UN does. And like the UN, it had one major flaw: it didn't have its own military force. It depended on the cooperation of its member states, which had their own agendas and self-interests--interests that were often at odds with other member states. Any preventive action was either stalled in political squabbling until it could no longer be considered a preventive action, or no action at all was taken.

 

WWII happened on LoN's watch. It was created to prevent just sort a thing from happening again, and yet it failed miserably. Hitler was a clear threat and yet nothing was done. And closer to home, under the UN's watch, a slaughter bordering on genocide happened in Uganda (I believe that was the place.) The UN had time to respond but those nations that provide the military and financial muscle wanted nothing to do with it so nothing was done until it was too late. You said it's dangerous to act without UN approval...well, I say to you it's dangerous to wait for it.

 

The only problem with saying that is, is that back then they haden't yet come up with the idea of peacekeepers. Its not that they didn't want to, they just didn't have a proper plan to. The idea of Peacekeepers was proposed by Lester B Pearson (canadian) who won the nobel peace prize for his work. He was the president of the general !@#$%^&*embly in 1952 which around that time he proposed the idea of peacekeepers. They were then first used in the Suez Canal crisis (sucssefully) which was in 1956. So to sum up Canadians Rule and they had no proper plan of using soldiers back in the 2nd and 1st World War. You can't just send a bunch of soldiers into an area.

[Guest feef]

>>The only problem with saying that is, is that back then they haden't yet come up with the idea of peacekeepers. Its not that they didn't want to, they just didn't have a proper plan to. The idea of Peacekeepers was proposed by Lester B Pearson (canadian) who won the nobel peace prize for his work. He was the president of the general !@#$%^&*embly in 1952 which around that time he proposed the idea of peacekeepers. They were then first used in the Suez Canal crisis (sucssefully) which was in 1956. So to sum up Canadians Rule and they had no proper plan of using soldiers back in the 2nd and 1st World War. You can't just send a bunch of soldiers into an area.<<

 

First a correction: I said Uganda, but it was actually Rwanda.

 

I'll quote from the UN's Peacekeeping site: "The success of a peacekeeping operation depends on a genuine desire on the part of the warring parties to solve their differences peacefully, a clear mandate, strong political support by the international community as well as the provision of the resources necessary to achieve the operation's objectives."

 

Peacekeeping is a strategy that emphasizes mediation and to suggest the UN (or the LoN before it) had no "plan" before this is absurd. It is useful to have this percieved impartial party (UN peacekeepers) intervene to provide a forum where a peaceful solution can be reasonably sought, but not every conflict situation is amenable to this nor can enough consensus among the Security Council be !@#$%^&*umed. This was the case with the Rwanda genocide...and that tragedy was something right up peacekeeping's alley. If we can't count them to intervene on matters like this, what does that say? Would you have supported a nation's decision to act independently and in opposition to the UN on this? Apparently not as it would be dangerous to act without their approval?

 

Again, the problem as I stated remains. They can't make the tough decisions.

[Canada_rox]

I'm sure you have a valid point, but you sound too much like my teacher and i keep on zonening out. sorry. Although << Again, the problem as I stated remains. They can't make the tough decisions>> your probably pretty acurate there. Although its probably because the media decides to show this side.