|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-09 20:39:47
I have only read the CBC account of it on the CBC News website. Does anyone know where the entire transcript can be found on the Internet?
Based on the CBC account alone I personally have some problems with the arguments presented. They seem incomplete. However, I would reserve judgement until I see the entire transcript.
One problem with having an outgoing PM represent Canada on these long term issues is that he knows he is "off the hook" come February 2004. For evidence of this sort of problems we only have look at the acrimony caused within the Liberal Party alone by the latest budget.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-09 21:22:30
I don't believe there is any problem with an "outgoing" Prime Minister of many years standing addressing an "urgent" matter. I am sure, he doesn't feel "off the hook"; he would like to finish his term as Prime Minister on a positive note. I feel more confident with a long term leader assessing a situation than I would by someone new to the job. No learning time here. I have never been a big Cretien fan; I had my doubts of his standing his ground; but I think, we can be very proud of him. I think Pierre Trudeau would be proud of him.We don't need another American apple polisher like Brian Mulroney.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 00:27:02
Well, "fatmomma", I suppose the honourable Mr. Paul Martin and his future cabinet may also strongly disagree with your views on so-called "positive (parting) notes" from "outgoing" PMs.
BTW, an interview with ABC TV at the honourable Prime Minister's residence does not strike me in any way as an "urgent matter".
As for the rest of your comments I hope you actually did read or viewed the entire interview as I have. I think your comments on other PMs would be off-topic here.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-10 23:41:36
Who cares what Mr Paul Martin may think; he is not elected as a leader of anything yet. The Canadian people have elected Mr Cretien as their Prime Minister NOW. Others should not count their chickens till they hatch.
My comments on other Prime ministers is not off topic due to someone criticizing The genuine Prime Minister
making a speech.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 16:12:23
No, its deadly important that we hear what Paul Martin thinks. He will be Prime Minister before the Canadian electorate decides which party forms the next government.
I understand you mean that he may not win the leadership race, but that only means that it is deadly important that all the potential Prime Ministers must speak up and not avoid this topic.
It will still be relevent in November.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-11 21:54:32
Every potential leader should let us know where they stand on the issue; agreed. It is not deadly important; much of this war problem may be decided before an election is called. It is only important to know what their priorities are and whether We would vote for them. I realize many Canadians and Canadian businesses would prefer our government side with the USA because we will suffer economically for making a strong independent stand. If we are to grow as a country; we must be willing to make our own decisions. Mr Bush is a very controlling and vindictive leader; but I have faith in the American people and that they will
elect a more fair minded president in the near future. The American people have always had a strong stand on promoting free speech.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 16:31:12
You are right that things are probably already decided. You are also right that the business community wants us to side with the US for economic reasons - which are legitimate.
You are right that we have to make our own decisions.
I have faith in the American people too.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 00:12:53
Okay, I found and read the transcript - the URL's text to it was too small to make out on my screen.
I think our PM's comments that the US "won" may have been a bad choice of words. IMO, it should not be a case of whether the US or Iraq wins. The issue should remain as enforcement of 1441. We should not allow this crisis to become an issue of whether the US "wins". This was one of the biggest concerns that Blair had. If this becomes a "US victory" then the US would have effectively acted alone and THAT is the dangerous precedent nobody wants. THAT and the fact that Saddam's non-compliance justified it was THE big reason why Blair supported the US from the outset. I must commend PM Blair for his intelligence and courage.
I also do not believe implementation of 1441 has been "won" as Iraq has still not satisfied 1441 and persists in delay tactics and evasion. It has also in effect, gained an advantage by splitting the UN, the EU and NATO. If anyone did win then that was a clear Saddam victory, even though the US may eventually still deny Saddam of "escape by dividing the enemy".
I also have a difference in opinion regarding "regime change". I understand Chrétien's argument but the issue was not well explored in the interview. For instance I think if enforcement of 1441 is left to military action there may be no viable consequence but regime change.
If the conquering force leaves after Iraq is defeated many of the Ba'ath/Saddam opponents would be encouraged to seize the opportunity to start uprisings. Chaos and bloodshed may result if there is no stabilizing force. This is what happened back in 1991. OTOH, if Saddam and his forces are left intact then history suggests that he will simply bide his time and work out some other dangerous scheme to secure his power. It is his nature. Iran, his arch enemy, may just have started their own nuclear program and Saddam has few friends in the area so great instability will remain if his regime stays in power. Should the US go back again and risk another perhaps deadlier round of acrimony with its UN partners and unilateral military action with Iraq?
And if the conquering force remains but does not interfere in local affairs, dangerous situations can still arise. That was what happened in Srebrenice in July 1995 when the Dutch UN force was completely unable to prevent the Bosnian Serbs from massacring the Bosnian Muslims refugees because it was not their mandate and they were repeatedly refused support from the French UN General Janvier. In August, 1995, NATO began a fierce air campaign against Serb forces around Sarajevo. By December 1995, the three Yugoslav ethnic groups are able to sign a peace treaty in Paris, UN turns over command to NATO and the Bosnian "war" is over.*
Finally, should the tables be turned and the Kurds or Shiites attack Saddam, what should an occupying force do if they choose to stay? IMO, the conquering force needs to finish the job, let the local people freely elect themselves a fresh government under UN supervision and then leave. Democratic elections would at least allow people to "own" their choice of government. If a government is not "owned" by its people it is always judged to be illegitimate and results in instability.
I think the case against regime change is never an absolute. It may be necessary depending on the circumstances and options. This is not a popular idea but IMO popular ideas are not always applicable and the decisions of leadership are often unpopular.
On the whole, I do think Chrétien kept the discussion fairly non-committal and I think that's where it belonged given his position, the interview's forum and the fact that there are still days and other possible issues down the road - he needed to keep Canada's options open and he basically did that.
Vox Canadiana
* If you are curious you may wish to read a 1996 French news program critic of General Janvier and the French government's handling of that particular UN fiasco. The account is quite disconcerting. Were the unfortunate French attitudes actually institutional or were they just the mistakes or flaws of individual(s)? Are the claims of the French journalist Julliard still valid today?
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/janvier.html
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-10 13:26:32
I'm truly sorry, but i do not agree at all with statements that Saddam is not cooperating. The chief inspectors have truly indicated that Iraq is cooperating, how can you even say the contrary? The inspectors are neutral in their approach. Saddam is stalling, and that is wrong, but the resolution which will be presented by the US is also wrong.
As for regime change, yes it may be necessary in some cases, and i understand that, but when Mr. Bush's priority is regime change (welll actually his priority changes from day to day as stated in the New York Times) then it is against all known international laws.
We already know that the US has bought the UN vote of the three african countries. So the US will probably have the majority vote, but it WILL BE VETOED by Russia and France, and i think they are doing the only moral thing they can do, and i will be forever in debt to them. Yes, the US will atacck nonetheless, and yes there will be a worldwide fracture (at least now i have much much less respect for the US then before this crisis, and i think the majority of people of the world think like me, i don't know for others, but i will remember this for a very long time)... But in face of morality, there is currently no solution but to oppose the veto.
On another point, i am aware of the fiasco of Srebrenica, and General Javier is as much as to blame as the civil person overseeing the whole operation (A Japanese national who had top authority - and refused all requests for air support - don't remember his name). General Javier could have done something, especially during one meeting of the military (without the civil people), and he hesitated for a long time, and finally refused, but i don't think he was acting on behalf of the French Government, i think he was simply scared (Don't ask me of what since i don't know!)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-10 13:41:32
Hi Vox,
I think the example you are looking for is Serbia.
Slobodan Milosevic was a regime change and Canada was part of that action. Canadian military action help stop the killing of Muslims in Kosovo, even though the resolution was rejected by the United Nations.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-10 17:09:12
Yes, and that was decided with NATO, and that was probably legal if you consider the recommendations of the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.
If you check point by point (I haven't done so myself though), I think that invadling iraq on the premises of humans right abuses would not stick if you regard only the recommendations of the commission... It would strickly be illegal.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 16:13:55
NATO is a military alliance. So, it does not have the same "authority" as the UN security council.
If the Warsaw Pact countries decided to bomb Greece, would you be nodding your head and saying, "its perfectly legal, they are the Warsaw Pact?"
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-12 20:46:21
"A sad day for democracy. We lost a good fellow."
Djindjic, the man pivotal in the deposition and arrest of Slobodan Milosevic, was gunned down and killed Wednesday in what appears to have been a deliberate assassination by a Belgrade-based organized crime group.
I know this is off topic, but since we were discussing it here I thought it was worth mention.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1047472640130_5///?hub=TopStories
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-10 14:18:09
My last statement was probably a bit strong . The only resolution at the UN currently that i accept, is the one proposed by Canada :
1. step by step points of disarmement
2. limited timeframe
3. meeting of the security council to report if each step is ok or not (vote on each of these steps)
4. If one of the steps is not ok within the end date, then automatic use of force (this would probably lead to regime change, even though it might not, the goal here is disarmement, and not regime change)...
The only problem with Canada's proposed resolution is the time frame, it should be limited in time, but the inspectors should be given enough time (So I'm not sure if the 28th of Marcho would be enough for the inspectors - the inspectors would have to decide)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-10 18:54:26
#300,000 troops ( 99% US, correct?)some are bombing more than before, cutting fences, and watching "Rambo Does Iraq".
Bribery and threats are American diplomatic stratagies. Will Iraq set up its Guntanoma Bay? Interogation includes just minor torture?
The Americans set the Iraqi Kurds up last time. They did the same with the Hungarians in 1956.
Arrogant Ari represents his people.
The US sets up Democratic Dictatorships> Ask the Afghistan population, Ask the Pakistans--on and on--The kid in Gr. 8 is going to take the Gr.1 kids slongshot but why?
To create democracy? Like in Turkey, Afghanistan, Palestine?
One does not seem to see a great deal of uncoerced support!
When Uncle Sam wants Canada, will Canada be able to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-10 20:08:27
critictrue1 asks, "When Uncle Sam wants Canada, will Canada be able to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction?"
Yes we could and would, you see we do keep records on what and were our deadly virus are. It is called a paper trail. :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-10 23:50:59
OH but would a G W Bush believe a paper trail; We all know about the fraudulent papers the US / Britain revealed. Many were proven to be fraudulent or old and plagurized. How quickly some forget. Mr Bush doesn't want to believe weapon inspectors; why would he believe our proof
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-11 15:40:25
Well it worked for South Africa and the country of Ukraine, both countries had WMD. No invasion there they turned everything over and had it destroyed.
Saddam says he cares so much about his people, don't you think he should just leave the country for a year or two?
One such as you must believe that he would be welcome back to Iraq after two years? Correct?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-11 18:45:16
It seems that all the US and UK feel obliged to produce in regards to 'contrary evidence' is to call someone a liar.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-13 07:41:45
By GRAEME SMITH
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail (March 12)
— After decades of denying that anthrax was used on Canadian soil, the Defence Department has asked a university professor to re-examine its history of experimenting with the deadly spores.-
It seems that paper trails get are not like Roman Aquaducts.
Reply to this message
|
|
