|
Contributor: bayne
Date: 2003-02-24 01:11:29
This commentator presents a pragmatist view that could lead the country down the road to national prostitution. I think we all wish to die with dignity. Some of us choose dignity and death, even when that might mean going out in a blaze of fire. To be so assured we create cultures that give us the secure feeling that we are part of a socially cohesive society. Such a society will not give up its morality and humanistic system of values to adopt the ways of and hangout with the "school yard bully". This is not a question of being disloyal to the US and supporting the distant Europeans. This is a question of not givimg up on trying to create a better world. It is a messy and lonely busines, but we must continue to anchor our pragmatism to actions that advance the mission of creating balance and stability in the world. Balance may mean that the Europeans have to create an alternative power base, and Asia may have to become effective military powers and trading partners. For the voice of the USA sounds ominous. We cannot in all conscience support an American policy that bullies its friends into striking at any country that it declares to be a threat to its interests and security; that commands the world to support its wars under the banner of American style civilization and ethics, but refuses to submit itself to an international court of justice. We cannot support a policy that says only the USA, Britain, France and Russia are permitted to have weapons of mass distruction, but the African, the less preferred of the Mid-east, and Asiatic peoples are forbiden. It is clear that we must all disarm or become accomplices in the creation of a world situation of essentially a white neo-imperialism supported by American superior weapons of mass destruction. A logical conclusion of this is that the advance sciences would not be allowed in the curriculum of non-white countries. For, this would be a potential threat to American interests and security.
The commentator seems to think that we must inevitably bend to the ways of the USA if we wish to have any influence in the World. We must remember that all Empires so for have crumbled. We must set our policies for the longterm. Of course,we may have to accept some of the pain in the short term. So far, I think we are holding our own in difficult circumstances. We should continue to hedge our bets in the development of a healthy world economy and societies, not just on being part of an enclave economy of the USA. The recent performance of our economy seems to strongly suggest that we can break away to some significant degree from this soul destructive dependency. "I am Canadian" may be the primal shout that marks that beginning. I like our chances.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-25 15:53:30
To suggest that Americans are interested in creating an empire a la Rome is a little bit silly.
Colin Powell and Condi Rice are not advancing the cause of white neo-imperialism like a stupid pair of Uncle Toms.
Europe is divided. It will not form some military balance to the US. If it did, I don't think we should cheer: NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME FROM FRANCE AND GERMANY BUILDING UP THEIR MILITARY.
Why should African nations be investing in weapons of mass destruction? How does this help illiteracy, disease and hunger? Will hungry Ethiopians be grateful to their leaders for preferring plutonium to protein?
The US is the best hope we have for realising peace in the world. Canada, Russia, France and these waffling countries will do nothing to contribute to bringing stability, liberty and justice to all.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-25 19:28:51
On the contrary, African nations buying weapons helps the US economy greatly, ending disease does not. One must keep in mind that the US has only 1 interest in mind in ALL policies. 'How does this action help maximize profits in the US?' All other things must serve this ideal, therefore reducing illiteracy in the third world must have a tangible and immediate benefit to the US economy or it is a bad investment. Now, more than ever, investors want to see returns in the next quarter, not the next generation. That is what led to Enron, AOL, etc to fudge numbers to appease investors. Profits must happen now, not later and certainly not for other peoples or countries own benefit.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-28 16:06:18
I don't believe that for a minute. The US is not as stupid as you think. Also, Enron-style fraud is happening everywhere - look at Ahold!
African nations buying weapons is SO MUCH LESS CRITICAL than Americans themselves buying socks, apples and light fixtures.
Also, the US is doing more to end disease in Africa than any other nation outside Africa. So, doesn't that seem strange, by your reading of US thinking?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-01 21:19:51
If the US is the best hope we have for realizing peace; the world is in big trouble. Mr Bush has but one thought on his mind and that is WAR. He didn't draw a breath after Afghanistan. That was supposed to be targeting terrorist but too many innocents were killed including our 4 Canadian soldiers but also Afghan civilians whose only sin was to be tall like Osama bin Laden.The American's claims of proof of Iraq"s weapons were all bogus, Saddam is an evil dictator but Mr Bush is much more dangerous. Canada, Russia, France, and Germany are NOT waffling. They have said NO not without UN approval. Why do you and Bush not understand. As an previous president"s wife said: Just say NO
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 16:22:32
Well, I guess its hard to take opponents of the war seriously when they say, "all you/Bush have on your mind is WAR."
Don't you think this is pushing it a little? Shouldn't you give people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt and argue based on their stated goals and objectives and not those you concoct in the quiet of your basement?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-05 23:22:56
Shouldn't Bush give the people of Iraq the benefit of doubt. There is no evidence of Iraq having "weapons of Mass Destruction" What there is is being legally handled by the UN weapons inspectors whom Mr Bush does not want to be allowed to succeed. The weapon inspectors are having Iraq to destroy the missles that exceed their allowed force. Mr Bush still protests that it isn't fast enough for him; he wants to attack with or without UN approval. The Iraq government has no proven ties to the terrorists that attacked the world trade center. You say nothing .
The only goals I hear from Bush is to invade Iraq and the government He is going to set up. He is president of the USA not the world. That is what the UN was designed for. You listen to too much CNN propaganda
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-06 18:47:50
Fatmomma, you stated "Shouldn't Bush give the people of Iraq the benefit of doubt.(?)"
By "people of Iraq", would you include the thousands of Iraqis that Saddam Hussein murdered or the still-living Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south? Do you honestly believe public opinion is freely expressed in Iraq?
The UN was unable to get Iraq to even consider UN inspections until the US and the UK took decisive steps. This fact proves the UN is effectively irrelevant without the US and the UK. The UN is now nothing more than a windbag, a safety valve for issues that stop short of someone walking away from the train wreck that the UN has become. Bush decided to try the UN route probably because of Powell and Blair. Bush is no diplomat and after 9/11 he probably made up his mind what he has to do regardless of what other nations or the UN may think. It is because he has sufficient proof that the US is already at war to the death with Al Qaeda and he has enough proof of Iraq's role.
Bush is blunt and no longer trying to be diplomatic but he has also completely exhausted his diplomatic options to get constructive action from the UN and other nations. His bluntness is at least honest and not pretentious in light of the gravity of what he means to do. The brinkmanship with Iraq is now past the point of diplomacy. Unless Iraq complies without even whimpering Bush means to attack and remove the threat. For the Bush Administration, the risk of escalation appears to figure as lower than the risk of leaving Iraq alone. They have a much broader picture of the situation than most other countries have.
As for Iraq's links to Al Qaeda there are credible allegations that a special Iraqi chemical warfare organization called UNIT 999 trained Al Qaeda people on chemical warfare at the request of bin Laden after a non-aggression pact was arranged with Saddam Hussein in 1993. Some senior Al Qaeda are from Iraq. In particular, Mamdouh Salim (AKA Abu Hajer al-Iraqi) served as liaison with Iraqi intelligence. He is alleged to have been Al Qaeda's chief of chemical weapons development. Salim is now in custody awaiting trial in New York.
Another Iraqi by the name of Abu Ayoub al Iraqi was a key organizer of Al Qaeda way back in 1989. There are others. Bin Laden's second in command al-Zawahiri is also alleged to have made a secret visit to Baghdad in 1992. Iraq is a police state and no one gets in or out without Saddam Hussein's knowledge. That is probably one reason why he has evaded all attempts to overthrow him.
Some of this information comes from the voluminous testimony of Jamal Ahmed Mohammed al-Fadl. He defected from Al Qeada to the US in the 90s and was kept secret for years and only known as CS-1 (confidential source one) until he testified in 2001. His statements are now public record. You should read them to be more informed. It has additional worrisome information on The Sudan. The picture I have is one where the US knows a lot more than they can publicly discuss because if they did then all the prospective targets of future US anti-terrorist activities would be alerted. There are probably other reasons why the US is dragging its feet. It has been very reluctant to act because it basically had this information for several years.
Try this URL:
http://cns.miis.edu/iiop/cnsdata?Action=1&Concept=0&Mime=1&collection=CNS+Web+Site&Key=pubs%2Freports%2Fbinladen%2Ehtm&QueryText=CS%2D1&QueryMode=FreeText
If you want to discuss your ideas you need to first do some research.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: welsh
Date: 2003-03-10 01:00:11
Canada cannot even act as peacekeepers as in the past; our helicopters collapse as they take off on rescue missions and we limp home with our tail between our legs! Supporting America before the vote in the security council is the only way to save face.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-25 20:33:55
As the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I like your basic intentions but I believe you confuse your prejudices with the critical nature of current issues and the wisdom of being "open" to people.
I agree it is arguably attractive to develop a multipolar international arena (as Chirac and Gaullism favour) but I disagree with the manner in which some people try to achieve this. Like Chirac, some people seem to take any opportunity to grandstand this ideal, regardless of the more important issues at hand. This makes for hideously distorted decisions in the name of distant ideals or some prejudice we hold (e.g. Canadian Anti-Americanism) or some delusion of grandeur we hide behind (e.g. Gaullist France).
Canada does not have to (and should not) support the US on all issues just because it supports the US in coercing Iraq to disarm at the risk of conflict. If we cannot discuss issues with other countries based primarily on the merits of the issues then we should not be surprised if countries treat all of our intentions with great suspicion. It is one thing to express logical differences in national interest but basing foreign policy on broadly rigid principles of dislike for another country is essentially religion, and religion is deadly when mixed with politics and international relations.
There is also very little evidence the US is imperialistic. Its tendency has traditionally been isolationist. While it may only see democratic institutions as replacements for disagreeable regimes no one can say for sure if there are better alternatives or have better expertise (or will) to help struggling countries organize themselves under other viable frameworks. The arguably undesirable fate of Canada one day becoming part of a greater USA has nothing to do with Iraq and should not be tied to decisions regarding it.
Finally, I should mention that a multipolar world order has existed many, many times in history, usually ending in major wars between those countries. I don't have to go into details on Japan, France, Britain, Spain, USSR/Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany...etc. The US has only participated in major wars reluctantly. So I think history is not really a useful way to pre-judge US intentions by. IMO, it is far more effective to base our foreign policies on understanding how Canada's actions may be viewed by the US and other countries as well as why the current issues mean so much to the US and the EU. When I look at things that way, I can justify the US positions but I cannot justify France and Germany's. It seemed ironic to me that the French PM Raffarin would mock Bush for "plyaing games" because he used the phrase "the games is over (for Saddam)". It seemed to me that Chirac is really the one who is playing games at the moment.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-07 02:51:41
I do not like the way Bush thinks the laws do not apply to him or the USA. It seems that since the USSR has crumbled and there is no balancing power; the USA has taken it upon themselves to control world situations to suit themselves. These world conflicts could have been more amicably handled by the United Nations. Granted they did have a right to strike back at he terrorists that attacked the World Trade buildings; but their actions went much further, There were far too many innocent targets, including our own soldiers. They are not doing the restoration work in Afghanistan either that they promised. In fact, Iran is contributing the most money to that effort. So much for that promise. Their military seems to lack control or an adequate communications system. Too many American soldiers were killed by so called "friendly fire" in the Gulf War. 40% I read. Bush or Powell said our young people will be up to the job. I sure wouldn't want them sending my son to murder innocent people, which is what most of their targets end up being. Iraq is not a viable threat and has no connection shown to the terrorists that attacked the WTC. I am not anti American. I believe the American people are wonderful people with similsr ideals to our own. I just do not trust the motives of this present administration. If the USA without UN approval attacks Iraq; it is known that this is very likely to set off more terrorist attacks in the USA and probably Canada too.
I do not like they way the American govt in looking for support by bribes of arms or money or threats of an
economic nature
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-07 14:38:08
Personally i think that if the USA attacks without UN approval, and without valid reason, in a few years there will be the third world war. Yes, I'm a bit pessimistic, i know...
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
