|
Contributor: djl
Date: 2003-02-11 18:37:21
I have read anumber of the comments on this website and, I must say, most are pretty insightful. However, a lot of the comments I see as derogatory and unresearched. In my humble opinion, if one wishes to express him or herself, one must be educated about the subject enough to put forth a logical, brief, and concise argument. We can sit at our computers and argue forever about the pros and cons of military action in Iraq, however, if one looks at the plight of the Kurds, the Shi'ah majority, and even the Sunni minority (which Saddam is a part), the obvious answer is action. Sanctions have plundered the economy into perpetual ruin and the food for oil program still does not prevent smuggling from Turkey, Iran, etc. While I do believe that military action should be a last resort, it now seems inevitable. I don't feel a policy of appeasement is viable over the long term. It looks as though the people that sell the most amount of arms to Iraq, namely China, Frnace, and Germany (P5 members all)want to veto any chance of a Chapter VII solution. Obviously the US must do something to protect its interests in the region. By the way, not just oil, but Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc. Saddam has had a chance since 1991 to destroy all WMD as well as its program. Why has he not done so? Cool headed Arab looking for friends or hot-headed meglomaniac looking for property and enemies?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-11 22:23:33
I would say Saddam is a cool headed Arab looking for longevity. He has survived a long time in what must be the most trying (read dangerous) circumstances, and still has his head on his shoulders, both ways.
The US must agree to be held up to the same standards it wishes to impose on others before it can expect to be regarded as a legitimate spokesnation for the rest of the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-13 22:48:38
My only hope is that this is tongue in cheek. If not:
Yeah, real 'cool headed'. If being cool headed entails starting wars, brutally oppressing/terrorizing/gassing your own people, and killing and/or torturing anyone who opposes you in the slightest manner. And it isn't just the US that want Saddam to disarm, it is the UN as well. The difference is, the UN does not have the stomach to do what is necessary, but the US and a few others (hopefully Canada included) do.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-15 21:20:15
The first half of my post was a bit facetious, but the second half is deadly serious. The US has in the past demonstrated it's aggression and it's refusal to adhere to UN resolutions, and only act against 'evil dictators' (many of whom were fully supported by the US) when there is direct economic benefit to such an action. They have very dirty hands when it comes to international affairs, and lots of people know it.
So far the US hasn't snubbed the world yet and gone ahead with an Iraqi invasion. They still haven't won the propaganda war yet. They need the support of other nations for legitimacy. Our own Prime Minister, (barely)Hon. Jean Cretien recognized the fact that no one trusts the US to act for purely non-selfish reasons. It is not in their nature nor their Constitution.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-12 10:31:41
Djl, characterizing commentary that doesn't agree with your own viewpoint as "derogatory and unresearched" or as not being "logical, brief, and concise" is a sure way to draw fire to yourself, not to your argument.
The plight of the Kurds, the Sh'ia and the Sunni all have arisen because of past decisions made in the West about the need to take "action". The track record of the West as arbiters and moderators of life in the middle east is execrable. And now we're almost certainly going to do them yet another favour. To which they will respond as they have so frequently responded, with resentment, hatred and/or violence.
We learn so readily.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-13 02:20:07
“
banquosghost The plight of the Kurds, the Sh'ia and the Sunni all have arisen because of past decisions made in the West about the need to take "action".
“
-------I think you give the West too much credit; there are more then enough world players besides the West. That statement sounds a bit like a cop-out, something akin to blaming ones parents for ones ills in life…
“
banquosghost The track record of the West as arbiters and moderators of life in the Middle East is execrable.
“
--------True, in war (cold war/soviet union) innocence was a first casualty, there is also an appropriate axiom, “If you run with wolfs long enough you end up becoming one”….
“
banquosghost And now we're almost certainly going to do them yet another favour. To which they will respond as they have so frequently responded, with resentment, hatred and/or violence.
“
--------That doesn’t seem to be the current case in Afghanistan? Perhaps now that the cold war is over, an awful page has been turned? “Overly optimistic”, yes I am by necessity.
”
banquosghost We learn so readily.
“
---------Jury is still out on that one…. I won’t hold my breath if you don’t hold yours, we would just end up blue in the face. lol...
Later;
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-13 20:39:54
copy and paste this into your browser address bar and hit "enter"
http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-14 17:59:33
Good Time line. I understand your points well.
However, I would like you consider this time line which has some interesting details in it. It shows the medaling of other nations close to Iraq as well.
I would pay particular action from 1921: forward.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm
bye for now.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-15 20:13:10
I take your point. There's still a lot of mention of Great Britain, US, oil companies and even the Soviets in there amongst it all. Seems like most flashpoints had one or another or combinations of them involved.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-14 18:05:12
opps, that last line should say attention, not action, I ran it quickly through MS-Word....
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-16 12:18:58
I read your title, "Ignorance is Bliss" and have thought about how belief in this statement has led to a very dangerous world. As I have sought to gain some understanding of the events and the people who have led our world to its present state I continue to encounter words written by respected and intelligent people. Today, I offer for your perusal excerpts from a letter written to the U.N. by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. His address is an important statement about our present global situation.
Dear Secretary General Annan,
A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come. The most careful analysis must be made as to why the world is subjected to such threats of violence by its only superpower, which could so safely and importantly lead us on the road to peace, and how the UN can avoid the human tragedy of yet another major assault on Iraq and the powerful stimulus for retaliatory terrorism it would create.
The Peoples of the United Nations are threatened with the end of international law and protection for human rights by George Bush's war on terrorism and determination to invade Iraq.
Since George Bush proclaimed his "war on terrorism," other countries have claimed the right to strike first. India and Pakistan brought the earth and their own people closer to nuclear conflict than at any time since October 1962 as a direct consequence of claims by the U.S. of the unrestricted right to pursue and kill terrorists, or attack nations protecting them, based on a unilateral decision without consulting the United Nations, a trial, or revealing any clear factual basis for claiming its targets are terrorists and confined to them.
There is already a near epidemic of nations proclaiming the right to attack other nations or intensify violations of human rights of their own people on the basis of George Bush's assertions of power in the war against terrorism.
President Bush's claim that Iraq is a threat justifying war is false. Eighty percent of Iraq's military capacity was destroyed in 1991 according to the Pentagon. Ninety percent of materials and equipment required to manufacture weapons of mass destruction was destroyed by UN inspectors during more than eight years of inspections. Iraq was powerful, compared to most of its neighbors, in 1990. Today it is weak. One infant out of four born live in Iraq weighs less than 2 kilos, promising short lives, illness and impaired development. In 1989, fewer than one in twenty infants born live weighed less than two kilos. Any threat to peace Iraq might become is remote, far less than that of many other nations and groups and cannot justify a violent assault. An attack on Iraq will make attacks in retaliation against the U.S. and governments which support its actions far more probable for years to come.
It is the U.S. that threatens not merely the authority of the United Nations, but its independence, integrity and hope for effectiveness. The U.S. pays UN dues if, when and in the amount it chooses. It coerces votes of members. It coerces choices of personnel on the Secretariat. It rejoined UNESCO to gain temporary favor after 18 years of opposition to its very purposes. It places spies in UN inspection teams.
The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation, voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention, rejected the treaty banning land mines, endeavored to prevent its creation and since to cripple the International Criminal Court, and frustrated the Convention on the Child and the prohibition against using children in war. The U.S. has opposed virtually every other international effort to control and limit war, protect the environment, reduce poverty and protect health.
A UN or U.S. policy of selecting enemies of the U.S. for attack is criminal and can only heighten hatred, division, terrorism and lead to war. The U.S. gives Israel far more aid per capita than the total per capita income of sub Sahara Africans from all sources. U.S.-coerced sanctions have reduced per capita income for the people of Iraq by 75% since 1989. Per capita income in Israel over the past decade has been approximately 12 times the per capita income of Palestinians.
Israel increased its decades-long attacks on the Palestinian people, using George Bush's proclamation of war on terrorism as an excuse, to indiscriminately destroy cities and towns in the West Bank and Gaza and seize more land in violation of international law and repeated Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads derived from the United States, sophisticated rockets capable of accurate delivery at distances of several thousand kilometers, and contracts with the U.S. for joint development of more sophisticated rocketry and other arms with the U.S.
The UN and the U.S. must seek peace, not war. An attack on Iraq may open a Pandora's box that will condemn the world to decades of spreading violence. Peace is not only possible; it is essential, considering the heights to which science and technology have raised the human art of planetary and self-destruction.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: moderator
Date: 2003-02-16 12:59:31
For the full text of former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's original document from which some text for this post was taken, please see:
http://www.progressiveaustin.org/clarkirq.htm
A reminder to those who include direct references from other sources to include quotations ("...") in order to indicate where one voice stops and another begins. This assists in determining the source and accuracy of the comments.
Thank you for participating in the foreign policy dialogue consultation
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-16 15:09:23
I have also read some of the other postings on this website and I agree with your observation about some people's apparent lack of depth in explaining their opinions. I have posted a couple of comments on other discussions including a prior one on the topic of "Security".
As for the issues you mentioned, I think your points are well-taken and are factors in how the primary "players" are responding to the issues.
However, I would like to draw attention to what I see as the primary driving force behind current US foreign policy.
The 9/11 attack has demonstrated to the Bush Administration the extent of Al Qaeda's resolve and the vulnerability of the US. These factors as well as the repeated ineffectiveness demonstrated by the UN have completely altered US foreign policy. The main US foreign policy issues now all fall under DEFENCE and not trade, not diplomacy or not containment of "hotspots"...etc. The primary concern issue to the US is "WHEN" will Al Qaeda succeed in hitting the US with WMD and "WHERE" might Al Qaeda get its hands on effective WMD technology. To the rest of the world Al Qaeda is still just a terrorism problem but the US clearly understands that Al Qaeda had declared war against the US and that the US is at war for survival. Most wars are disputes that can be resolved by capitulation or negotiations even after considerable loss of life. The extent of Al Qaeda's war declaration is that it is not interested in negotiating - it is a fight to the death. This difference in mindset completely puts some other nations' leaders, including Canada's, at odds with those in the US. Until the other leaders get it, there will be no effective diplomacy with the US. As a Canadian, I am particularly concerned that our leaders don't take Al Qaeda's threats seriously enough. If Al Qaeda succeeds in using WMD against the US, our proximity and close ties to the US mean that many thousands of Canadians may die as a result. To me, our leaders are wrong to continue to fight the US on an issue that was already decided and effectively demonstrated by a third party, Al Qaeda. By continuing to vacillate, our leaders only make the US to look like it is a war between the US culture and the culture of Al Qaeda. The US really has no choice on the matter. War was declared on them.
We must recognize the pervasive and long term threat of Al Qaeda. If you read Al Qaeda's past declarations and doctrines, it actually means to apply the same treatment against all nations that bin Laden considers as not of the "House of Islam". These includes all nations that do not meet with bin Laden's approval including other Muslim states like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Iraq's regime is very, very thin - just one tyrant. If he were to "go away" for some reason, no one can tell what will happen in Iraq. Indications are that Hussein has retained WMD capability and Iran, his arch enemy has just conveniently indicated that it too is doing the same. By themselves, these nations would not attack the US but the very credible demonstration by bin Laden that he means to keep his words has now changed everything. Bin Laden would want what Iraq has.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-16 03:27:04
So, attacking Iraq will only succeed in uniting old enemies and strengthening the animosity to the USA. At this time; it is Iran who is spending the most money to rebuild Afghanistan. Iran is not doing this for Western interests. Any WMD that Saddam has; he got from the good old USA. Perhaps the USA should be more prudent with their meddling in other countries; and quit arming their "friend of the week". The USA should put more effort into strengthening the UN. If they supported the UN and paid their dues; a stronger more effective UN could work more effectively in controlling world wide peace. The USA government wants to be the only country with WMD; The USA government wants to be the sole control of the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
