langeweile said:
can you enlighten me on what could have been different?
Please don't repeat the same old tired phrases, please be specific.
Leave the Taliban in power?
Ignore Saddam?
I'm sorry... I'll most likely have to give you the same old tired phrase...
To start it off, if I had even a hint of how to handle it differently, I'd be running in the next federal elections.
Like I said, I have no answers, nor can most people see into the future. If they could, there would be no Bin Ladden; but if there hadn't been a Bin Ladden, what would have become of that region? The USSR would have expanded? Who knows?
I probably am one of those ranting Canadians that do nothing about it; and understand that just because we disagree with just about everything Bush is doing, who am I to say that what he is doing now, no matter how wrong it seems to me, isn't going to benefit us all in 50 years. Then again, none of us know if the opposite can be true too: what if in 50 years the States have become so powerful that they actually have to power to take over just about any counrty they want (an unlikely scenario, as most other nations would eventually rise up to the challenge), but my point is that no one knows what the repercussions might be in the medium to far future.
To be specific with Iraq (though not to discredit the average American citizen, but rather to illustrate why so many of us strongly dislike Bush and his administration), yes it is a good thing to have gotten rid of a dictator, but seeing how things are running now in Iraq with the daily suicide bombings killing dozens of poor ordinary citizens and US soldiers who have heartbroken families back home, could it be that Iraq is simply not ready for that democracy? When so many factions are fighting amongst themselves, an iron-fist might have been seen as the best way to go. Invading Kuwait was dumb, and taunting a stronger nation was also dumb; but what were the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq, a country his father had pounded into submission before letting them return to somewhat regualr living? If terrorism was his true motive, why did he not invest more forces in capturing Bin Ladden? If nuclear arsenal and weapons of mass destruction were his true reason, why is he not pounding on Iran or North Korea (which has declared having nuclear arsenal)?
I'm not saying the US servicemen are dying in vain, as no soldier ever really does - they fight for what they think is right, but I feel they could have been better used elsewhere.
However, now that the Iraq situation does exist, we can't keep on going with this "half in, half out" approach. If the war is indeed ended, the freakin UN should send in an army of peace keepers. With the number of countries part of the UN, I can't believe that we wouldn't be able to send in enough troops to quench the extremist rebellion....
But again, if we do that, who's to see what would become of the UN in the next 50 years... An organization to mop up other countries' mess?
I don't know where I'm going with this (I'm sure you can all tell!), so I'll leave it at that.
But let's just settle one thing. Canadians do not hate or dislike Americans -- we just don't like their leader. I don't know where Canadians stand as far as Americans stand, but to be called weak, pussies, or lapdogs is just insulting. I'd like to point out that there is also a lot of Canadian blood all over Europe. I would also like to point out that the Canadians were alos there to take Juno beach when the Americans took Omaha and Utah beach.
