Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Security

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

Future of our Security

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-03-07 07:33:21

There are many countries overlooked in these lists where the US has had direct military influence. Most notably, Angola, where UNITA (US supported)rebels have commited horrible atrocities and acts of terrorism.
In 'The World Human Rights Guide' The nation of Liberia had, in the eighties, a military coup. The former government officials were liquidated.
The 'US supported this regime because of US interests in that country'

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Future of our Security

Contributor: Vox

Date: 2003-03-07 13:03:30

Well, I am unsure of the objectivity or accuracy of your claims but...

...by using the same twist of deductive logic you might also disregard any policy offered by France, Germany and Russia (and even Belgium) because Gaullist France has been an unrepentant colonialist and it committed atrocities in its various colonies, Germany because of its NAZI past/legacy and Russia for its past/present atrocities in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia....etc. and Belgium for numerous colonialist atrocities in Africa and Asia. It is an essentially endless and absurd exercise because none of the relevant parties are without "past sins".

My point is that you need to focus on the current issues and try to research the bases of the current allegations and rebuttals. Furiously dredging up fuzzy historical events with dubious accuracy and objectivity may satisfy some emotional grudge you bear but IMO it also creates useless distractions from the current real issues.

I believe that people who "live in the past" are some of the reasons why we have so much unresolvable strife in the world and IMO linking all of your arguments to convenient past events is a very non-constructive way to look at the real issues at hand.

Vox Canadiana

Reply to this message

Future of our Security

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-03-07 18:05:57

I agree that the focus must be on the present, and certainly on solutions, not blame. However, it has been said "those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it".
Germany was de-nazified, mostly, after WWII. Britain and France (and many other european nations) have lost control (at least gov't-wise) of their colonies. The US, however, seeks 'economic imperialism' and expansion, and is prepared to use the sword as it's means of 'protecting it's interests'.
The world must face the notion, however absurd it may seem at this point in time, that the US might have to be confronted, and a 'regime change' forced upon them, if the rest of the world is to be truly 'free'.

Reply to this message

Future of our Security

Contributor: Vox

Date: 2003-03-08 12:23:54

"The world must face the notion, however absurd it may seem at this point in time, that
the US might have to be confronted, and a 'regime change' forced upon them, if the rest
of the world is to be truly 'free'. "

Well. Okaaay... and er, have a good day.

Vox Canadiana

Reply to this message

Future of our Security

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-09 21:42:05

Perhaps, the American people will have to make this regime change themselves. A regime change may be coming soon for his side kick Blair. 85% to 90% of the British people are against the war without the UN approval.
I would like to know what an independent poll of the American public feel about Mr Bush's stand. Completely anonymous of course as people are discouraged from speaking out for peace. CNN asked if they should be considered unpatriotic. Mr Bush said: you are either for us or against us.
No sane person could defend the bombing of the WTC but we do not need to agree with his actionsince. Too much, so called "collateral damage" If they are that inept; they should be armed with pea shooters.

Reply to this message

Future of our Security

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-03-07 23:22:49

To clarify my stance against the US led invasion of Iraq I would say this.
Based on numerous recent historical examples I must conclude that this invasion is yet another violent, agressive action by the US to further enhance their wealth, and future access to that wealth, by use of force. The main issue here is how this action, and actions like it, will affect the future of all. There is a great opportunity for the world to 'wake up' and realize what is and is not important to the future of mankind. The focus of the US is not the future of mankind, however. It is on the next quarterly shareholders report.
I see the US as only concerned with subservience to Mammon, and as zealots, they feel 'justified' in any action that serves Mammon, even if they have to lie, murder, and pretend that they represent 'freedom' to do it.

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic