|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-15 17:11:22
Again, the world firmly demonstrates its extreme disapproval of this unjustified war against Iraq. Hurray for sanity!!
Although mainstream media is downplaying the vast numbers of demonstrators in every major city around the globe they have, nonetheless, been forced to acknowledge that this is unprecedented in human history. I urge anyone who still believes that war is necessary to go to Senator Robert C. Byrd's website and read his address to the U.S. Senate on February 12, 2003. Perhaps there is still time to avert the holocaust that the U.S. and Britain are planning to unleash on an unsuspecting world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-15 21:26:37
Protesting against war is nice, but the big goal of all these people should be to voice their opinion for a solution, not just stopping halfway, at ceasing an action. I am glad that more people are willing to question the US openly as to their somewhat shady intentions and acts in the past (and present) that may have even led us up to this current conflict.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-15 23:16:46
The people have spoken. Millions of them. I think that not only do people desire peace, governments are are being proven as the leading enemy of the people.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-16 13:47:46
These demonstrations show many people do not want war against Iraq. They also shows many more other people do not seem motivated enough to voice an opinion.
It is perhaps a question of how "pressing" or "relevant" certain issues appear to each of us. I would contend that very people actually have enough information or understanding of such information to make a balanced judgement. Most people just use whatever information or experience they have to quickly assess and react to such grave issues.
The possibility of dramatically heightened conflict in the Middle East should be viewed as a frightening possibility by everyone. Canadians should therefore carefully consider the bases and consequences of such a development. We are a small nation and as individuals we feel even more helpless but it is nevertheless important to know is going on and to lend support for building a "better" world.
From what I have researched, the issues are far more complicated than simply the US settling a grudge, pursuing oil or flexing its superpower muscles. On the contrary, these "excuses" would actually be highly detrimental to US interests. We should acknowledge that the US has gone to great extents (over many years) to repeatedly plea for multilateral action rather than to take unilateral action. If the had US wanted to use unilateral force it could have tried to fabricate excuses immediately after invading Afghanistan when it already had a large armed force in the vicinity.
Reality is usually a lot messier than what we would prefer it to be - the "good guys" versus the "bad guys". Middle Eastern politics have always been treacherous to navigate. Even between devote Muslims there are extremely volatile issues that divide them and cause them to continue to massacre each other and them become conveniently "friendly" to each other when circumstances dictated. Of course, Western nations should remember WWII when we too massacred each other (and where are those adversaries now?). It should be clear that none of us can assume to possess a higher moral ground for granted. It must be constantly scrutinized and we must also understand that moral ideals are usually not possible to achieve in days, months or even years. Quite often, they take generations and the sustained goodwill of many. So the decisions leaders take are often cannot immediately realize our ideals and may easily be misinterpreted. Very often leaders are limited to make decisions that only buy us time to allow people to work out problems without destroying everything.
There are many, many details and sequences of events that people easily gloss over when they boil issues down to a simple "good" vs. "bad" decision. We must also be mindful of not accidentally pre-judging because of our own experiences. We need to bring in new information and assess the current issues. Governments that maintain powerful checks-and-balances do not permit lunatic presidents and prime ministers to start wars for personal or for religious reasons.
I fervently wish for peace but my desires and the peaceful desires of many others have not and do not affected the single-minded intentions of some terrorists who have already for years pursued using WMD and nor have they, even with the weight of the UN and World Community affected the power aspirations of dictators who have already used and are determined to continue to spread the use of WMD. I think it would be an unimaginably tragic realization for us to "wake up one day" and realize that an WMD had just been used to start a final war against one of our neighbours if not against Canada.
We have seen no demonstrations for going to war. There were no grand marches nor were there demonstrations reminiscent of parades in pre-war Nazi or Fascist Europe. War against Iraq is not about a single nation's vain desire for power or materials. It is about an unpleasant reality that has fallen on the only nation which is reluctantly, and now progressively, resigned to the fact that it is solely capable of mounting the unpopular and the as yet, unappreciated effort.
Time heals all wounds but the ability and eagerness of a few to use WMD would deny the human race of the healing possibility of time. To buy the human race more time, WMD need to be effectively removed from those who would use them.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-16 14:40:05
Vox, you state: "To buy the human race more time, WMD need to be effectively removed from those who would use them."
May I remind you that the U.S. has used WMD in the most horrific fashion ever as witnessed by the entire world at the end of World War Two when nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. has stated in the past several weeks that it will not rule out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in its battle against Iraq.
I would state without hesitation that the U.S. is the biggest promoter of WMD and is the largest supplier of same to many unstable nations around the world. Its military industrial complex depends on WMD and continual warfare for its very survival. And for those innocent folk who still think this impending war is because the U.S. wants to improve the lot of Iraqis and to protect the world from Saddam's aggression against his neighbours perhaps I could quote briefly a statement made on Feb. 16 by an observer of the financial mechanisms which seem to underly this act of aggression. The heading for this article states:
Stock markets to come under pressure this week on Iraq war uncertainty
MALCOLM MORRISON
Canadian Press
"Some Wall Street analysts expect a rally if bombs start falling on Baghdad, pointing to past stock surges coinciding with the outbreak of hostilities."
I truly find this shocking as I'm sure most human beings would.
You also state; "Governments that maintain powerful checks-and-balances do not permit lunatic presidents and prime ministers to start wars for personal or for religious reasons."
I ask you to look at what has taken place in America since 911. Surely the checks and balances you mention have not been used in the Congress of the United States. Instead, the people have been lied to and have had many of their democratic rights stripped away through the implementation of the U.S. Patriot Act. Thus, a lunatic administration has been allowed to create a climate of fear within the U.S. and the people of that once great country have been led to believe that a pre-emptive strike against a defenseless nation will cure all their problems. Unfortunately, their problems will more than likely be exacerbated by this dangerous policy. The peace rallies in the United States and around the world have given hope to the idea that there is a better solution to the world's difficulties.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-17 03:14:01
Wonders never cease. Why are there so many peace activists? Because the vast, vast, majority of them have no idea or knowledge of the situation at hand. Our countries have (thank God) been in relative peace for so long that people forget the cost of it. Of course it is horrific to think of the human cost of a war in Iraq, or any war for that matter. But this is where the thinking stops for the anti war movement. They see that war = bad short term. They go about inventing ludicrous conspiracy theories regarding oil and vengeance, instead of confronting the harsh reality of things the way they are. You know I even heard some people saying Saddam isn't that bad of a guy? I see the current anti-war movement as a fad for the most part.
I am quite upset at our government for being so down the middle on this subject. They would rather be popular politically than do what is in Canada's best interests. They let polls dictate policy. Height of absurdity.
And marl, why bring up the nukes in WWII? It was a different time, different administration. The current gov't can hardly be blamed for that. It was a mistake, but not Bush's. The US never rules anything out. It does this for deterring wackos like Saddam from using WMDs on them. They have had WMDs for a long time, and have not used them since. They have proven to be trustworthy with them, just as Russia and other countries have. But I know of certain other countries who have not been so trustworthy, and who do pose a threat.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-17 12:29:09
Waterloo, you ask, "Why are there so many peace activists?" and then you proceed to answer your own question with the statement, "Because the vast, vast, majority of them have no idea or knowledge of the situation at hand"
I beg to differ with you on that point in particular. There are so many peace activists today because people are better informed and are not relying on only the mainstream media to supply them with information. People, in general, are waking up to the fact that for many years we have been manipulated and lied to by the press who are owned by big business. If you do a little research you will find this to be entirely true. Not only that, but there are many people who are using their common sense to see that the policies of the only super power nation on this planet are leading the world down a very dangerous path and will result in escalation of terrorism, not a reduction of it. However, you seem to have "inside information" that you are not willing to post; at least, that is what it seems you are hinting at, since there is no actual evidence which compels the U.S. to attack Iraq at this time.
You say that you see the current anti-war movement as a "fad". I would suggest that you spend a little time to find out why people would rather work on a diplomatic solution instead of killing countless innocent human beings and embarking on an escalating and dangerous path that may lead to our planet's demise.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-17 22:51:14
Since the beginning of civilization, which is also the beginning of war as a political tool, people have been aware of the fact that they are manipulated and lied to by their governments; even if not until afterwards. There needs to be no research done to know this. Also, it is common sense that if you fight terrorism, it will strike at you as well. Should we not fight because of fear that terrorists will not stop? Should we then stop fighting crime since it will invariably exist? Even if the terrorists do escalate hostilities, this is better than fighting terrorists with WMDs, who strike less frequently.
No actual evidence? Put 2 and 2 together, and there is your evidence. Iraqis have anthrax and VX, they can't be found (or accounted for), because Iraq says they destroyed them all. Do you honestly believe that we should take their word for it? Even after they have proven themselves liars repeatedly about this very issue. Can we afford to take that risk? I don't know about you, but I live in southern Ont., and if any sort of WMD attack hits a place like NY, then it affects me greatly. I do not want to 'take their word for it'. They need to provide proof that their weapons/programs are gone. Even the UN, and EU say this. They are violating int'l law, and we have seen in the past what complacency in this regard leads to: a lot more innocent death than would have been.
I would be happy if Saddam said, "Here are our weapons, destroy them", but he did not. I think this war should be fought because it will save lives, not because I want them to be taken. What would you say if the US goes in, and does find WMDs? Would you recant your position?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rb
Date: 2003-02-19 17:35:45
It is interesting reading Waterloo's responses as it demonstrates a number of the common aspects of the official party line, specifically noted by academics such Chomsky in "Culture of Terrorism". The first is to marginalize any facts or alternate explanations for the argument at hand as "ludicrous conspiracy theories" which conveniently allows instant dismissal of opposing views without providing any countering facts or discussion. The second is stating assumptions without providing any facts. "Our countries have (thank God) been in relative peace for so long that people forget the cost of it." which is totally not even remotely true if you even just glance at our recent history (actions in Bosnia and Afghanistan most recently for example). The final example is that when presented with an argument that is irrefutable (the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki) the excuse of "It was a different time, different administration" is brought into play - i.e. things have now changed so that does not apply. Considering US and allied behaviour in South America, Panama. Bosnia, Iraq (the first gulf war and the continued sanctions), etc., that being massive attacks against civiliians and related infranstructure resulting in a lowered quality and outright loss of life, one simply cannot rightly claim that our intentions are different now. Especially considering that the majority of folks running things in the US at the moment have been prominent in these affairs since the Nixon years (and were involved in later incidents such as the Iran-Contra affair).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-19 20:03:00
For the record, there are anti-war protesters who I have no problem with, and who make sound, logical arguments. I only marginalise the arguments that are in fact conspiracy theories without any solid basis. That just happens to be the norm of today's uninformed anti-war protester (eg "All for oil"). I have provided facts as to why Hussein is a threat in previous posts, and if needed, I will go through them again.
As for Bosnia and Afghanistan, that is relative peace. I was referring to full scale warfare, with mass casualties. Canada, US and allies had very, very few casualties in both wars combined.
Are you seriously against the UN sanctions? This I'll never understand. What does Mr Hussein do with the aid that he gets? Why did the ever championed UN institute these sanctions in the first place? I know people are dying from them, but shouldn't this force Hussein to comply? Their blood is truly on his hands, sometimes literally. And there were no mass attacks against civilians in the first Gulf War. This is another unfounded argument which does not hold to reason. If the US wanted civilians dead, there would be an exponentially higher amount. Note: the first Gulf War was UN sanctioned. Why not blame them? Also, do you forget that Hussein put military installations by hospitals, mosques, residential areas, etc...
It's not just that times have changed, it's that the people running the admnistration have. Should we hold Germany accountable for their previous aggressions? Or Japan? Using the nukes was a mistake, a very grievous one, I will never defend the use of any WMD. But surely you see the fault in holding the current administration at fault for that error.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-20 00:19:11
Well, actually "rb", your bringing up Chomsky's ideas is of debatable persuasive value because Noam Chomsky is a well-known anti-US author. You might instead try to find a neutral, hence objective authority to quote this idea from.
IMO, it was speculative for "marl" to insist that it's all about oil, the stock market and "big brother" intentions. It was also in the choice of his words and the manner in which he presented the words and ideas.
As for WWII and the US using nuclear weapons, everyone should remember that Japan and Germany both had active nuclear weapons programs during the war. I am not sure what the US knew of the Japanese WMD efforts. I do lament that the US resorted to actually using its WMD. It was clearly an escalation. I believe it was mainly to save lives of Allied soldiers and to shorten the war. I wonder if the US would have gone ahead if they knew then what we know now.
However, your contention that nothing has changed (and so on) would seem to imply that the US will use WMD on Iraq's civilians. This is a pretty wild assumption especially given the fact that the world will be watching. While I see some value in debating a possibility where the US may resort to tactical use of WMD should Iraq uses WMD, you seem to only criticize the US and totally ignore the weight of the threats presented by Iraq and Al Qaeda.
One-sided thinking helps no one in a world where a lack of understanding and communications have already caused so much harm and hatred...leading us all to the nightmare of our current predicament.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-20 12:48:39
"Well, actually "rb", your bringing up Chomsky's ideas is of debatable persuasive value because Noam Chomsky is a well-known anti-US author. You might instead try to find a neutral, hence objective authority to quote this idea from."
Could you please define "anti-US"?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-21 23:22:14
I assume you wish me to elaborate on why I call Chomsky an "anti-US" author. This would be a fair question.
Chomsky is well-known and well-publicized for his harsh views on US foreign policy. To anyone who looks at Chomsky's reputation and interests, I think it would not be unfair to say that he has a long-running gripe with US governments.
IMO, it is one thing to objectively dissect a controversial split in opinion but quite another to take sides.
Chomsky has chosen sides and has built and reinforced his credibility as a critic of US foreign policy. While I think he made a legitimate decision his doing so also immediately makes his views and ideas one-sided.
I believe it might have been "better" if Chomsky had pursued a broader application of his ideas and reinforced his critical thinking as universally applicable and palatable. Human weakness and failings are not unique to any group. To present them as such only prolongs the strife.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-22 13:34:08
I've read every book that he's ever written (including his studies in linguistics and philosophy) and I've never viewed anything he has to say as "harsh"...
"Chomsky is well-known and well-publicized for his harsh views on US foreign policy. To anyone who looks at Chomsky's reputation and interests, I think it would not be unfair to say that he has a long-running gripe with US governments."
"Chomsky has chosen sides and has built and reinforced his credibility as a critic of US foreign policy. While I think he made a legitimate decision his doing so also immediately makes his views and ideas one-sided."
Could you please cite sources and give examples? I'm guessing you already know what Chomsky thinks of anti-Americanism...considering that you've gone and called him "anti-US".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-22 21:40:11
"kn_aeshap", let me first say that my original assertion regarding Mr. Chomsky was to point out his fervent devotion to challenging established views, including the concept of "terrorism". While his intellectual views may be valid from the standpoint of alternate interpretations they should be presented as different viewpoints and not as proof that other views are necessarily invalid.
As you claim to have read all of Mr. Chomsky's literary output then you may be at least be as knowledgeable or even more knowledgeable about Mr. Chomsky's persona to the public than he is. Of course, no one should be certain of what Mr. Chomsky actually intends except perhaps Noam Chomsky himself. Unfortunately, I am not interested in debating Noam Chomsky nor comparing people's impressions of Noam Chomsky's work.
Finally, I wish to correct your misquoting my posting(s). At no point did I indicate that Noam Chomsky is "Anti-American". He has established himself as anti-US by questioning US administrations and their motives and choice of provocative "lingo". I would guess that Mr. Chomsky might actually be considered an American patriot and he perhaps serves an important role in helping to keep his country "reasonably" honest. At any rate, we should try to stay on topic.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-23 03:58:01
To straighten things out for you:
I didn't make any mistakes when I was quoting you. Re-read my last post- you'll notice that at no point did I make a reference to you having called Noam Chomsky "anti-American" (as you claim).
In that post you can see, that I made a guess -an assumption- at the fact that you would probably know what Chomsky had to say about anti-Americanism..."considering that you've gone and called him "anti-US"." I directly quoted you as saying "anti-US", no mistakes there, because that is what you said: "anti-US".
Once again, with everything you've gone and said- you haven't cited any sources and have used no examples- no definition at all. I was merely asking you to back up your comments with some sort of evidence, but you've been unable to do so...
When you decide to say things like "my original assertion regarding Mr. Chomsky was to point out his fervent devotion to challenging established views" or "He has established himself as anti-US by questioning US administrations and their motives and choice of provocative "lingo".", you should really do something to back up your statements.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rb
Date: 2003-02-20 18:05:25
I should first note that weapons inspectors have found *zero* evidence that Iraq still has any weapons of mass destruction and has actively refuted any nuclear capability.
The United States has made numerous statements stating that they *are* considering use of nuclear weapons and gas as well as following the "Powell Doctrine" (i.e. "overwhelming force" as in bomb them into submission). For those not familliar with the Powell Doctrine here is a quote from the man himself on the issue (forgive the site name, just the first appropriate quote I came across):
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/womanrant/Aug18_2002.shtml
In his autobiography, Colin Powell discusses the Vietnam War and explains the benefits of destroying the food and homes of villagers who might sympathize with the Viet Cong: "We burned the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters ... Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said people were like the sea in which his guerillas swam. We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference does it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?"
So basically it is about destroying civillian infrastructure and killing civillians which is against international law from what I understand. In the first gulf war about 100,000 to 200,000 civillians were killed directly by allied bombing raids not to mention the deaths afterwards due to the destruction of infranstructure (sewage, hospitals, power, etc.).
The plans for this new war include the "shock and awe" tactic of massive mombardment:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml
". . .So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
So the US definitely plans to use WMD against Iraqi civillians just as they did during the first gulf war. And from some reports, they are looking into developing tactical nuclear weapons:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/20/1045638426664.html
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-22 15:13:48
"rb", I gather from your view regarding weapons inspections in Iraq and UN Resolution 1441 that you believe it is up to UN inspectors to find evidence of WMD. You should also clearly note that many other people including the UN inspection team disagrees with this view. This discussion is not merely an intellectual exercise or game. We need to be sincere and acknowledge all views.
The whole point of 1441 was to ensure that Iraq agrees to not develop or possess WMD. It was not to ensure WMD cannot be uncovered in Iraq. To fulfill 1441 Iraq has to provide complete and convincing proof that it is abiding by 1441 - this requires complete transparency. If the UN were to insist compliance is merely dependent on the inspectors' ability to locate evidence then it would unwittingly promote a dangerous practice of evading UN inspectors. This approach to disarmament is unworkable, very expensive to implement and only leads to suspicion and ultimately to conflict. The only practical way to peace in disarmament is for the nations involved to present complete and convincing proof that account for all materials in question. Nations will not disarm unless they are convinced their potential opponents are also disarming. This was what the US and the USSR proceeded along with their mutual disarming. The basic premise of the grand scheme of ridding the world of WMD is to first: stop proliferation, second: to gradually reduce existing stockpiles of nations who already have WMD. Can you imagine applying the same flawed concept of UN inspectors trying to uncover WMD to Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, India, France, China, Russia and the US? It cannot possibly work. None of these nations would trust the process and the mad race for bigger and more WMD will continue. To disarm there must be complete transparency.
Regarding your comments on Powell, I think wars that are fought against innocents are wrong. They only turn people against you and sow the seeds of future conflict. All wars are affronts to humanity and the most worthy goals for humanity should instead be to overcome fear and to promote life. Unfortunately, both the Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime have explicitly demonstrated their desire to kill "innocents" with WMD, not as unintentional victims but as primary targets. I have not read Powell's biography but the "scorched earth" tactic you describe is well known. Scorched earth is normally used as a defensive tactic to deny the enemy of "supplies" and rest. To use "scorched earth" in an attack is counterproductive for it not only denies you of the enemy's infrastructure but it will also incur upon you the wrath of innocents. IMO, the Vietnam War was an unjust war from both sides. It was a war that involved both internal and external parties. The side whose internal party possessed the greater will to win went on to win the war as it should. If the US wishes to achieve a long term victory and peace in Iraq it must embrace and win over the desires of the greater portion of Iraqis.
Regarding your observations on the "shock and awe" speculations on CNN, you neglected to also quote the part of the report where it said ...'"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.'. I believe the idea is to dissuade Iraqi troops from defending Saddam Hussein. The fact that his regime has moved their defenses into populated areas should also impress upon you that Saddam Hussein does not care about the Iraqi people and wants to use them as shields as he did in the first Gulf War. I gather you do not condone the use of human shields?
Finally, regarding the Australian report on "min-nukes" you mentioned, the story is not new and has been detailed on CNN. Your contention that "the US definitely plans to use WMD against Iraqi civilians..." is purely speculative as well as highly inaccurate. These weapons are designed to destroy bunkers or other fortified structures and are not designed to destroy people. While they are still nuclear they seem not designed to wreak widespread damage. I still have concerns that the nuclear fall-out would be unacceptable but we need to know more about the idea and what the US intends before we can effectively criticize. The current idea is that "mini-nukes" would be powerful enough to penetrate deep bunkers and destroy biological and chemical weapons stored there. I am not entirely convinced of this but the presence of biological and chemical weapons do present a serious threat that begs for a solution. IMO, "mini-nukes" may not be the right solution for Iraq.
Finally, I would just like to point out again: if Saddam Hussein would provide clear evidence that he has destroyed all WMD and no longer possesses WMD programs then forcing him to disarm would be no longer be an imperative.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-25 15:15:00
I don't think you can describe people who disagree with the "pro-peace" movement as insane.
To call the impedending liberation of Iraq a holocaust is extreme.
If there is no balance and if you do not attempt to understand what those who disagree with you think, how can you expect to be understood in turn?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: UVIC_student_of_history
Date: 2003-03-18 11:09:51
Indeed, CONGRATULATIONS to all participants in the PEACE rallies of March 15th, 2003. We will not stop until global fascism ceases to exist! Killing innocent Iraqis for oil is an abomination against "sanity."
Reply to this message
|
|
