Matt, please stop making our country look stupid.

I've nowhere near concluded
Oh god.

Okay.

Matt, please stop making our country look stupid.

If I wasn't in such a hurry to get it posted before the interview, I would've made sure to CLEARLY state that I was WELL AWARE that my views weren't those of most Canadians, nor of most who support the hunt (actually many of the arguments used in favour of the hunt are things I happen to know are not true; And many of the arguments used by people against the seal hunt are ones I find very logical)

As far as I'm concerned, it is not my fault for "making our country look stupid", (even if I AM doing that, which I don't think I am) but it's more their problem for looking at us that way...

Anti-Canadian comments are prominenet outside the seal hunt as well. On some message boards I used to post in, many people seem to LOOK for things to attack Canada on.

Part of the reason I was focusing on the fact that I wasn't finished was that there's so many things I wanted to say and that the comments I was making didn't mean what they may have appeared to mean because I was about to follow it up with a general context I was referring to.

Yes I know it isn't just Americans who are protesting the seal hunt; But they seem to be protesting it more emotionally. In case anyone finds me focusing on the argument of these sealers making a living "emotional", it's in responce to the Americans in particular focusing on emotions in their campaign against the seal hunt; Focusing on us "killing baby seals in front of their mothers"

I remember last year most of the extremist protestors who made the death threats were Americans (interesting to note that after 11 months after making the threats, there's nothing on the news about sealers being killed by the people who made those threats; I'm assuming the news media would report it if it happened as it would catch attention. I don't know about who is protecting the sealers and how, but obviously whoever is would have to be doing a pretty good job if the extremists haven't managed to kill any sealers yet) and that some of the more anti-Canadian protests were from the U.S. Though in other countries as well, protests are saying things like "Canada= Cruel Baby Killers" and things like "boycott Canada to save seals". But the U.S. is saying things like "meet Canada's next victim" when, like I said, there's a lot more victims of the U.S.

I'm not for the seal hunt for reasons of tradition, more so of fairness. It's most prominently protested by Americans, and the Americans seem to be the most prominently anti-Canadian about it. I don't think Canada should have to unfairly give up something that other countries have things that could be considered worse than. (Eg. Boiling dogs in Korea) Fundamentally, my opinion is that humans take first priority in actions done by humans. For example, if the insulin therapy wasn't tested on dogs we wouldn't have it now to keep diabetics alive. (?) (Well, I don't remember what grade I learned that in but I know it was a long time ago so my memory might be fuzzy) I and other diabetics like myself would be dead. But as far as defending it goes I'll try to understand the feelings of animal lovers (I'm assuming animal lovers is a politically correct term to use) but at the same time I have to ask why worse animal abuse goes on many other places yet they aren't fighting those places as persistently)

Furthermore, it's Canadian seals they're killing. Last time I checked, Americans didn't care about non-Americans. They read out thousands of names of victims of 9/11, yet don't take the time to read out the names of the foreign casualties of their wars. Doesn't that kind of prove that you Americans consider people in your own country more important than those not in your own country?

Ok sorry, went off topic there for a while. Well sort of, though I was making a point about the American protestors.

Nonetheless I gotta admit it would probably be a practical alternative if we were to do ecotourism instead in which people would theoretically pay to see the seals; But I doubt they'd come here and pay to look at the seals in the blustery cold. The seal hunt protestors themselves say they hate coming out in the bitter cold of the ice floes even if it's to speak out about the hunt...

[Edited in again a few minutes after other edit]:
Furthermore, while the seal hunt is damaging to Canada's reputation, if we gave in to economic pressure wouldn't that be even worse for Canada's reputation since it might get us labelled as cowards or something like that for not stopping something until we're giving in to public pressure?

While I didn't read the posts as I have more pressing things to do, the length of the posts means it's not quite what you missed. The posts used to be a lot longer.

I think they just seemed a lot longer because I was so addicted to using mostly quotes and rebuttals to make up most of the arguments of my posts. I'll look for a saved copy of one of my "quote-and-rebutall" posts and try word count on it when I get the chance, but if I remember correctly my slightly less space-wasting style in the underappreciated games thread didn't make my posts seem as long. Frankly I think the posting style, not necessarily certain habits like diluting my point (which quite frankly I see as "making clear that I understand the other side of the argument") was the problem.

Copy and Paste everything I said last year about fishermen and whatnot. I'm not reading all this bull again.
See you next year.

Uhh... if I recall correctly, it was lost in the whole hacking incident?

Just make clear your stance on the seal hunt, I don't remember what exactly it was.

All that's left is the first post.

Well. All I can say is my posting style apparently wasn't as I remembered it. I thought by April I had given up the whole quote-and-rebuttal focus what with examples like the underappreciated games thread, yet in that case the first post was an example of it?

Seems I left a lot of things unclarified about what I said.

When I said not all the sealers were doing the cruelty I was referring to the unnecessary cruelty. I think if people's problem is with the cruelty of the hunt and that they see it as being more inhumane than the government sees it as being, then shouldn't their protests be to make sure the way they kill seals is as humane as can possibly be. But it's impossible to make the deaths quick and painless 100% of the time.

When I said "children are innocent" I was going along with the public perception of children as innocent as I didn't want to stray too far from the topic in questioning it, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true.

My point was more about how it seemed like the photos were focusing on the children protesting it, I remember from last year I noticed in particular the picture of the crying baby holding a picture of the seal. Obviously people are more sympathetic towards chilldren than adults, just compare how much children are punished under the law to how much adults are punished...

No, all of it was/is the problem. Going off on tangents is the main cause for your "style" issues in the first place.

Part of the tangentiality is in some way or another somehow relevant to the thread. Like for example, going off on the tangent of how the U.S. read out the names of the victims of September 11 but never does that for foreign casualties of their wars, so I referenced that as an example of Americans caring more about other Americans than about non-Americans; Apparently not caring about non-Americans, then turning around and for some reason suddenly caring about non-American seals.

Americans apparently don't care about the sealers, because as soon as someone points out all the massive public sympathy for the seals and asks where the sympathy is for the sealers who would lose their jobs, Americans jump in and label us as cowards for "using sympathy" (which they used as well themselves) since it seems that for some reason, when there's sympathy for seals it's "riteous" and when it's for Canadians it's "cowardly whining"

See, as far as I'm concerned when I go off on tangents part of the reason is actually to make a point about the main topic. Yeah I know there's examples where I go off tangents that don't make any point about the main topic or even have anything to do with it; I'm trying to avoid those.

TR: "You go off on tangents too often."
Matt: "No I don't, and to prove it I'll go off on a tangent about how my tangents aren't really tangents."

Matt,

Your "style" really needs some polishing. Saying stuff like this;

Quote:

---

This is not like the U.S. invading Iraq for their oil to make sure they have a monopoly on the world oil market in the future.

---

shows that you have a lot of assumptions that you think are facts.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion, and write about facts that support your opinion.

Then you will have a style that can clearly convey your message without making Cycle feel you are making Canada's education system look substandard.

Jimro

I knew there was a reason I still visited this forum.

Oh Jman, you do so love that daily dose of snowblowing bueacracy don't you. :3

I knows what I loves, and it's matthayter. <3

For anyone who was in the chat when I said I was typing up a response to this thread, I was interrupted shortly after, didn't save what I was typing up, had to go to school the next morning, realized how far behind I was on my schoolwork and tried to catch up on it for the next few days.

Wonderbat, did I say they weren't really tangents? If so, I didn't mean it. I meant to say that even tangents can make a point about the main topic. I also wanted to emphasize that some things may not be quite as irrelevant as they seem. For example, the tangent of the U.S reading out all the names of the 9/11 victims without doing so of the people they killed, (which I interpret as an example of Americans saying that other Americans matter more to them than non-Americans, and I believe there are many other examples) when mixed with it being primarily the American protestors who are saying things like "meet Canada's next victim" and when mixed with the protestors in general making comments that are usually associated with humans and applying them to animals...

I was making that tangent to ask, specifically about the American protestors things like "If the protestors expect to have the same things said about animals as about humans, why don't they apply the 'Americans care more than foreigners' mindset to animals as well with

Again, I know that many people around the world are protesting this hunt. But again, organizations like the SSCS are American organizations, and if I remember correctly they helped influence other countries to join the protest against the seal hunt which to me seems like part of the reason why.

Now yes, I make many tangents that don't necessarily say anything about the main topic. Sometimes I want to elaborate on my rebuttal to another comment. Sometimes I want to clarify something just in case people might misunderstand what I meant about a certain example of something. Sometimes I elaborate on something and trail off a bit too much, but I don't think it's worth it for me to try to stay ENTIRELY on topic, especially since the MF Central allows for some thread branching.

Jimro:

I have been told many times by different people on this site that my posting style needs fixing. So, I know that already. I've been trying for a while to fix my posting style, for example, by trying to avoid the habits I've been criticized about, especially avoiding the ones that I'm convinced are bad habits, and not as much so avoiding the ones that I myself believe are habits that have some benefits...

Anyway, I know the difference between fact and opinion. I also know the difference between assumption and opinion. And "they went in for oil" is not an opinion, but an assumption...

Whether or not someone did something and for what reason is not opinion. Using an analogy, with a consistent situation, "this is great" would [technically] be an opinion, "I like this" would be fact, (unless someone didn't like it and was lying) and something like "this person worked hard to make it good" would technically be an assumption since the one in question was not in the other person's situation.

That said, there eventually comes a point when we're better off making an assumption. With what we're directly talking about, the Iraq war, while we aren't the people who made the decisions and can't be sure what they're thinking, there will always be a point at which people will have to make an assumption as to someone else, even if it means acting on it as if it's fact, based on what it seems like.

For example, True Red says things like "you're just giving him a reaction which he wants so he can do that whole 'I'm being abused' routine", which she assumed (and really is not true) and acted on it assuming it was fact. Not only did I not say I wanted it, but I don't see what gave her the impression that I would attract insults on purpose in that thread (there was nothing in the few posts before the post I was referring to that I took as an insult, let alone that I saw as an insult but that's another story) nor do I see what she was referring to as examples of the "I'm being abused routine" but if it seemed that way to her there's no

Now, if you mean for me to give facts that back up my assumption, then I guess I should have elaborated and I will do so now. Also, I don't know why I even said "monopoly" (maybe had something to do with me typing the post in a hurry) I meant to say that the U.S depends on oil, (all the cars, all the jet fuel, ect.) and the U.S needed other countries' oil if they were to still have any oil left when the world's oil supplies run low. The Arab countries, where most of the world's oil comes from, were not selling enough to the U.S to keep up with consumer demand, right?

Invading Iraq gave the U.S direct access to Iraq's oil fields, right?

By the way, it is interesting to note the comment you made, "Canada's education system". Education is actually the responsibility of the provinces, not of the federal government. Though yes the government does give money to the provinces or territories to pay for education, each province or territory is supposed to make its own decisions on education within the province. Though recently the Atlantic provinces have tried to make their education policies more similar to each other, this would leave out most of Canada, including British Columbia, where Cycle lives.

In general: I'm not sure if I said this before in this thread but I wanted to emphasize at least now my main point: The seal hunt is practical in that it gives sealers jobs so they can have income for themselves and their families as well, and at the same time helps keep seal populations under control. At the moment, humans are seals' main predators. The quotas are set to have it so that the number of seals killed will be close to the number more that come down the floes than last time. Now yes, there is more killing than what is on quota; Some sealers might kill a seal and not take it back to be counted. If that's the protestors' problem, then that's what's to be protested, not the seal hunt itself.

Also, I realized I didn't link to that article by a speechwriter for George Bush that called sealers "a bunch of worthless cowards". I think the page it was on said something about "not all seal hunt protestors are left-wing hippies". (Which indicates to me that the site that was associating the left with hippies, and wanted to associate itself with Bush supporters) Similarily, not all seal hunt supporters are right-wingers. (I was 5 blocks left of centre last time I took the Political Compass)

I agree this has little to nothing to do with ideology, if anything it'd have more to do with nationality than ideology. Yes I am aware of the study that said 84% of Canadians want the seal hunt to end. But I think that might have more to do with the fact that the boycott of Canadian seafood is damaging our economy and the seal hunt is damaging our reputation. And yeah, I think if Stephen Harper would eventually put an end to the seal hunt this year would be the year to do it. Then it would be a sort of "The Canadians chose to have Stephen Harper instead and he ended the seal hunt, so Canadians ended the seal hunt" image, rather than a "Those Canadians only stopped the hunt when we put pressure on them, so they're cowards" image. Really, depending on the timing of when we end the hunt IF we end it, it might actually make Canada's reputation even worse.

As I said, the U.S, being a larger country than Canada, has more media influence in the world than Canada, which might have something to do why there is so much worldwide protest to the seal hunt...

Ok sorry, I rambled on too long, I'll stop there for now...

[Edited a few minutes afterwards to slightly change some of the wording...]

Matt,

I don't care about the seal hunt one way or the other that's other peoples stuff. An assumption (what you think) isn't different from an opinion (what you think).

How do I put this delicately... DON'T STATE YOUR "ASSUMPTIONS" OR "OPINIONS" AS FACT!

You assume that the US "needs" foreign oil to survive without considering that US coal deposits can be turned into oil for around $50 a barrel (using the same process that Nazi Germany and South Africa used when cut off from foreign oil supplies), and that US oil reserves are untapped for a reason. You are making assumptions without having enough facts to form an educated opinion. You are "talking out your ___"

You assume that there was no other reason for a US lead invasion of Iraq, and I don't really care, EXCEPT that you DON'T back up your opinion with source. You state your assumption as though it were gospel truth. Instead of saying, "I think the US invasion of Iraq is all about oil" you wrote what you wrote.

You assume that idiot liberal animal rights protestors should care about fellow human beings. Consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds and conservatives, welcome to the club. Don't hold your breath waiting for liberals to be consistent in their views, when you FEEL about what you believe that doesn't leave much room for rational thought.

To improve your style you need to avoid commas. You are using commas to create run on sentences that need to be broken up into smaller sentences. Only after you master writing one idea per sentence should you go back to using commas.

Also consider using less sentences per paragraph. Three sentences per paragraph is stylistically attractive. Four is fine. Five is pushing it.

Hope this helps.

Jimro

[The following, except for the last paragraph, is in response to Jimro though I don't mind others reading it but that's part of why this post is particularily longwinded since it's in response to someone who seems to not have had much of a problem with reading my long posts from earlier.]

Jimro, I was not stating my assumption of the U.S. invading Iraq as "fact". You say "you wrote what you wrote" after I explained why the reference was worded that way. As I mentioned, the problem with the first post was that I was in a hurry to get it typed before the interview came on. I DIDN'T intend to say the Iraq war was absolutely for oil (though personally I believe it was) but when I was typing up that post I kinda wanted to do SOMETHING to differentiate the sealers from big business in the U.S.

The sealers are going on the hunt to make a living for them and their families. I do not see that as greed. I don't see why others see that as "greed" because as I had already said people need food and shelter to live. They need a certain amount of money to buy food and shelter. Thus they need a certain amount of money to live. I kinda wanted to get rid of that association of "profit" with wealthy people who are just trying to get wealthier. I wrote what I wrote. I also clearly stated that I didn't completely mean it.

Also Jimro, you say that an opinion isn't different from an assumption. I remember from English class since I was in middle school, opinions are personal preferences, and assumptions are thoughts formed without complete proof. I know that I often don't go by those technical terms myself (Eg. Suggesting certain comments aren't assumptions even though they aren't completely proven) but I just wanted to differentiate opinion and assumption. Now going by technical terms I guess you could say most things we say would be assumptions, but that in itself would be an assumption.

I have never before heard of the "turning coal into oil" method, nor do I know how you expected me to have heard of it, nor does it make sense to me. You talk about turning coal (carbon) into oil (hydrocarbons) but I haven't heard in Chemistry of any reaction that involves carbon as a reactant and hydrocarbons as products.

By the way, ideology, stance on seal hunt, and whether or not you listen more to emotion than to reason, even if they seem connected, wouldn't they still be considered separate factors? As I said in the previous post, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush is protesting the seal hunt, and I'm a leftist and I support the seal hunt. People of one ideology aren't necessarily always consistent more so than people of another either. Really, what does inconsistency have to do with liberalism in itself? Heck, come to think about it, what does position on seal hunt have to do with liberalism in itself?

By the way, the consistency I was referring to was actually that of animals within their own country, as in farm animals being killed... you don't see very many international large protests against that, nope. Nor do you see so many people taking camera footage of a farm animal being killed at the same time...

The comment I made about the U.S. apparently caring more about Americans than non-Americans was not so much so about that mindset itself but asking why they don't apply that mindset to animals as well by looking at animal rights problems within its own country first?

As I said, the seals are Canadian seals.

Part of the reason I'm defending it is that the people protesting it are more strongly attacking the sealers themselves than anyone else. If their problem is with seal pelts being used for fashion, shouldn't their problem be more so with the people who are buying sealskins? I defend the sealers in particular, they are the workers after all. 😛

Last but not least, I was NOT saying there was NO other reason at all for invasion of Iraq. But as had been suggested on the news in the months leading up to the war, the U.S. was apparently looking for war. If it was WMD they were looking for, why wouldn't they have gone after NK first?

In history courses, militarism and imperialism, the underlying factors, are considered the cause of WW1. The assasination of Franz Ferdinand is considered something that Austria used as an excuse to invade Serbia. In that situation retaliation against Serbia could have been considered another reason but history courses, or at least the ones I've been in, look at that as simply an excuse for war.

By the way, I noticed that this year's thread isn't as active as last year's thread. Why is that?

www.newton.dep.anl.gov/as...m03328.htm
www.charlesedisonfund.org...t6/p1.html

Like I said, I don't care one way or another about the seals (I see it as a local issue). I'm a conservative hunter, so what I do care about is when idiot activists use a Canadian model for American politics. Do us all a favor and have a hunting season for idiot activists so we can get THAT introduced in the states.

You "wrote what you wrote" in a hurry, but that is no excuse for a shoddy post. If you don't have time to do it right, where will you find the time to do it over?

From Merriam Webster's Thesaurus

One entry found for opinion.
Entry Word: opinion
Function: noun
Text: 1 an idea that is believed to be true or valid without positive knowledge <my opinion is that such interference was unnecessary>
Synonyms belief, conviction, eye, feeling, judgment (or judgement), mind, notion, persuasion, sentiment, verdict, view
Related Words say; impression, perception, take; attitude; assumption, presumption, presupposition; conclusion, decision, determination; deliverance, esteem, estimate, estimation; credence, credit, faith; concept, conception, idea, thought; position, stand; comment, observation, reflection, remark; conjecture, guess, hunch, hypothesis, surmise, theory; advice, recommendation, suggestion; angle, outlook, perspective, point of view, shoes, slant, standpoint, viewpoint
Near Antonyms fact, truth
2 a position arrived at after consideration <my opinion is that we should refuse to do business with that company>

Entry Word: assumption
Function: noun
Text: something taken as being true or factual and used as a starting point for a course of action or reasoning <the widespread assumption that violent entertainment leads to violent behavior in children> <your argument is faulty because it's based on erroneous assumptions>
Synonyms postulate, premise, presumption, presupposition, supposition
Related Words hypothesis, proposition, theory, thesis; axiom, truism, verity; belief, canon, doctrine, dogma, gospel, law; precept, principle, rule, standard, tenet; basis, foundation, ground; conclusion, deduction, inference; affirmation, assertion, avouchment, declaration
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
If you want to get technical there is a difference between opinion and assumption. When you put it into text and post it on this forum we as readers cannot tell the difference between what is your opinion, and what are your assumptions, unless you state them as such.

Jimro

Wow, considering the post, you sure responded quickly.

As for it not being an adequate excuse, fair enough. I'll admit I made a mistake in making the thread within a half an hour until the interview either way. Most people probably wouldn't have read the thread that quickly and then went to watch the interview, and I should've considered that.

Now yes in itself the seal hunt is a local issue. But the publicity surrounding it is international. With worldwide protests the seal hunt can be considered a local issue with global effects. It was sorta similar with Terri Schaivo (SP?) even though the issue itself was mostly affecting one person directly, it later on got a lot of publicity which in a sense you could say made it a bit more of an issue.

Also, last time it seemed like you were associating liberal with animal rights activists. But seeing as how you said "idiot activists" this time I guess you wouldn't be seeing activists as idiots necessarily and so wouldn't be seeing liberals as necessarily animal rights activists?

By the way, what's this supposed to mean?

Quote:

---

idiot activists use a Canadian model for American politics. Do us all a favor and have a hunting season for idiot activists so we can get THAT introduced in the states.

---

Really I didn't understand what all that quoted was referring to...

Lastly, about opinion vs. assumption, well the thing is I can't exactly say "which is an assumption" for every single thing I say as an assumption, obviously not everything we say is perfectly proven.

As for you pointing out definitions that indicate the definitions for opinion and assumption being similar, I'm just going by what I learned in school.

Liberals in the US often point to Canada as a role model for US legislation, everything from health care to marijuana use. They also the same thing with California.

I was trying to be humorous about a hunting season for "Activists". Kinda like how Dick Cheney opened up hunting season for "Lawyers". That way I could say, "But they have a hunting season for Activists in Canada!"

The "International Activists" are weighing in on what is a local issue, which is idiotic in my opinion. Whaling happens in the ocean, making it an international issue. Seals are not endangered, are hunted from shore, in a few remote areas. Somehow it just doesn't make me feel all motivated to tell other people what to do.

Of course that is the downside to democracy, if you can persuade enough people to vote your way you can make anything illegal.

Rant On:
I'm tired of people going to other countries to protest one thing or another. The world does not need another Rachel "Pancake" Corrie.

I'm tired of PETA hypocrits throwing paint of folks who wear fur, and calling me a murderer because I use my incisors for their natural purpose.
Rant Off:

I think we've covered opinion/assumption enough. As long is neither is stated as fact you will have improved your writing style immensely.

Jimro

Well Jimro, on the one hand, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to be looking at other countries and what they did there. Liberals in the U.S suggested doing things that were done here in Canada? Similarily, Conservatives (as in actual members of the Conservative party) sometimes point to the U.S. as a role model for legislation in Canada. I'd say it's only fair that we get looked at as a role model for certain things sometimes. People or parties don't necessarily have to look only within their country for ideas, they don't really buy products only within their country either.

Now granted I'm not sure the extent of the comments you were referring to, was it something like "Canada did that so we should too!" or more along the lines of "well let's look at what's done in Canada, I'd say what they did was fairly reasonable, why don't we give it a try?"

By the way, "a hunting season for activists"? You seem to be referring to animal rights activists, why would they want a hunting season, or even use it for that matter? Really, what do you mean by us having hunting seasons for activists in Canada?

Well anyway some people protesting the seal hunt think that what with the few seals who are killed and left behind the rate of killing may be higher than the quotas and if we continue at rate, we might make them endangered. Frankly I don't think that's likely, and furthermore I believe that if their problem is with them not taking certain seals with them (which I don't really see why they'd do) then shouldn't that in itself be what they're protesting, as opposed to the seal hunt itself?

(In case you're wondering, part of the reason I'm mentioning all this is because last year there were a lot of people against the seal hunt, posting in its thread, I'm assuming those same people would happen to be reading this thread and deciding not to post)

You're right though, that is the downside to democracy or at least the "majority rule" part of democracy. The free speech part is great to keep either way (frankly if there was a benevolent dictatorship that made the decisions itself but hypothetically allowed free speech for people to debate an issue in front of its government for it to decide on after seeing the debate I myself believe that wouldn't be as bad as if there was a democracy where people voted against freedom of speech) but yeah majority rule is a little bit dangerous... if a political party promises to oppress a certain minority group that the majority of people want to see oppressed what's to stop that party from winning?

But I believe nonetheless that the benefits outweigh the downsides, and I guess you'd agree too right?

By the way, personally I wouldn't really consider "I'm tired of PETA hypocrits" a rant.

In this corner, we've got the conservative soldier, who will take you on anytime and anywhere...JIIIIIIM-ROOOOO!

And in this corner, we've got the professional bloviater, who will go on and on to make his point from angles you've never even thought possible...MAAAAAAT HAYTEEEEEER!

Taking bets now ladies and gents.

Like a toked up Canadian snowboarder...

Like Milli Vanilli's career...

Pick your cliche, they all work.

Jimro

Earlier on, Jimro, I didn't realize that you were a soldier. I guess I could understand that if you risked your life in battle for your country and then to hear someone say your country was only looking for oil... yeah I see why you'd have wanted to disprove that.

Jimro, while I know that I wouldn't truly understand what being in the army is like (to be honest I doubt I'd be willing to risk my life like that even if it were for my country, let alone having to kill others or having to serve in a battle I didn't agree with, so I wouldn't really identify with your experience) I could imagine you and your fellow soldiers were always told before battle that the Iraq war was for democracy because they (either the higher officers or government or both or higher officers saying things from the government) wanted to keep soldiers as motivated to fight as they could keep them...

I know you look at other articles and sources, I see you doing such things in this thread. But still... I wonder if your army service could have influenced your view of the Iraq war earlier, as in gave you sort of a predisposition on the war...

I still believe the Iraq war was about oil. Now I suppose something that could have influenced my predisposition was what I learned in school about it.

Now why aren't people who posted in last year's thread posting in this year's thread? What's so different about it this time?

It's not different. Why waste time on the same thing twice?

(Please don't answer me.)

Matt,

There is no way for the US to control the Iraqi oil fields and not enrage the entire Middle East, and most of the rest of the world as well.

The bulk of US oil comes from Canada, the Gulf of Mexico, and South America. We get very little from the Middle East.

Heck, Great Britain is an exporter of oil, they don't need to import oil from Iraq.

So why did two countries that really don't care about Iraqi oil spend billions of dollars ousting Saddam and trying to build a stable democracy in the Middle East?

It's not for oil, if we wanted to control our oil supply we would invade Canada. But no one really wants to invade Canada, where else would we get our Cuban cigars?

I'm not going to give you the answer about why OIF happened, I am going to say that when you look at the facts, oil doesn't add up as a reason for the US and UK going to war. Of course having 20 percent of the worlds crude oil supply in the hands of Saddam wasn't exactly good for world stability...

Jimro

It's not for oil, if we wanted to control our oil supply we would invade Canada. But no one really wants to invade Canada, where else would we get our Cuban cigars?
You could try ending that ridiculous embargo.

Not gonna happen, too many Cuban American voters in Florida who are so adamantly anti-Castro that there is no chance of ending the embargo.

While we don't mind trading with China the embargo on Cuba will end only after Castro dies. Of course once again tariffs on Chinese goods are being bantered around by junior congressmen.

Jimro

The following part is in general to everyone reading this thread: Acrio's comment didn't take into account that I brought up some new arguments this time around and if I recall correctly the debate last year wasn't over. I think it was interrupted by something last year I don't remember what. I thought it was locked but I don't see a lock on it in MFC2.

Anyway, now for responses. Jimro, I'm kinda assuming you DO realize that it has done many things in the Middle East that has enraged it for a while, like displacing Palestinians with the creation of Israel which prompted many Arab nations to restrict oil exports to the U.S...

So it's not like enraging the whole Middle East is something new to the United States.

As for the UK, didn't they joined mostly to improve and/or maintain good relations with the U.S.? Heck, even Canada ALMOST joined at one point because they wanted to do what they could to maintain good trade relations with the U.S. Our contribution would have been symbolic if anything, since our country has about a tenth as many people as yours.

The democracy you're building is not exactly stable is it? And my history book printed before the Iraq war even started had the argument "we can bring democracy to Iraq" and the counter-argument "such an attack would most likely destabilize the region and do more harm than good"

So even before the war, the possibility of it making it even LESS stable was considered. Well, at LEAST by Canadians. (It was a Canadian textbook) And I'm pretty sure it would have been considered by some Americans.

[Pointless additional comment edited out]

The middle east has never been a rock of stability.

The formation of Israel had more to do with the UK and the UN than the US. Even Canadian history books should record that.

Why don't you get a copy of Gen. Franks book, "American Soldier" and read it? It will give you a different perspective, one that you won't get from the mainstream media.

Jimro

Jimro, I'm not even up to the Middle East chapter in History. I'm basing my info on an example of embargos that I learned in Economics class, not History class. I guess the Economics teacher wouldn't focus as much on which country did what more so as it simply having been done. So I'll admit I should have considered that before making a comment based on it.

My comment about the destabilization point (the point that attacking Iraq would destablilize the region and do more harm than good) being recognized was based on me reading ahead in my History book. I didn't read ahead to the part on Israel because it wasn't as interesting to me. Last summer when getting my "books for next year" I read ahead to the part about Iraq because I had a bit of an interest in it but I read that part BEFORE I was convinved that it was for oil.

However, what I DO remember from History class was that a lot of American businesses in Cuba were lost when Castro nationalized industry. Wouldn't American businesses be anti-Castro more so?