Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Conclusion: The World We Want

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

The World We Want

Contributor: jeffg

Date: 2003-03-12 18:54:09

First off, we are not bashing the United States. We are bashing its current leader, George W Bush. (Alright, his advisors, too.) Second, I don't see how jealousy is relevant - try fear.

Reply to this message

Show in topic

The World We Want

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-13 15:59:36

Fear - perhaps its more like paranoia.

Jealousy is definetely part of the problem. Its one of the reasons people blame the US for problems created by their own governments: jealously acts like the lubricant which that allows despotic governments to slide their culpability to everyone's favorite scape-goat: the US.

Reply to this message

The World We Want

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-13 22:29:10

No jealousy here; in fact I feel sympathy for the American people. The US a scapegoat ; yeah sure .
The present American government refuses to listen to good advice. By insisting on attacking a country while it is disarming under UN weapons inspectors is very stupid and dangerous. It will only succeed in alienating other countries and bring more terrorist attacks to North America. Mr Bush seems to think He is the only authority in this world that is important.

Reply to this message

The World We Want

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-14 14:42:46

Many Canadians, including you, criticise the US administration without being paranoid. There is a legitimate discussion here.

However, the ever-present strand of anti-americanism that exists in Canada, you must admit, is driven mostly by paranoia and a fear that we are not a real country.

I do think many governments across the world use the US as a scape-goat for their citizens suffering which is largely the fault of these governments.

Also, I think we will get more terrorist attacks regardless of what we do. That's what scares me.

Reply to this message

The World We Want

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-15 05:16:29

No, I strongly disagree with you. It is Mr Bush's arrogance and dismissal of any suggestions that could avoid war. He had a mandate to seek out terrorists. He bombed too many civilian targets in Afghanistan without capturing Osama bin Laden which was his target. He suddenly turned his attention to Iraq and made many assertations that have been proven false. His WMD proofs that are revealed to be fraudulent. Powell's logic to tie Iraq to the al quadi network was incredibly lacking. His insistence on war with no regard to the UN was very disturbing and arrogant. His thinly veiled threats of economic repercussions for not backing him is not in keeping with the American and Canadian respect for free speech and democracy. Most people I talk to still have faith in the American people as basically fair minded but we just do not trust this leadership. I do believe that peace in the middle east can only come from pressuring Israel and Palestine to work at resolving their differences. Israel with their US backing has become very aggressive; mimicking US speeches and refusing to obey UN resolutions.

Reply to this message

The World We Want

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-17 13:54:22

Yes, we disagree. What suggestions have been made to avoid war?

The only suggestion I heard came from Quatar and it was a suggestion to Saddam: leave Iraq.

Also, why should any country "obey" a UN resolution when there is no incentive to do so?

Reply to this message

The World We Want

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-17 15:12:04

A timetable for disarmement. The Canadian proposition was a good proposition...

Reply to this message

The World We Want

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-17 22:34:40

What do you think the UN weapons inspectors were for. They were making Iraq destroy missles. Saddam and his people were cooperating. The suggestion from the majority said we should not attack Iraq as long as it was cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors and destroying and revealing any banned military assets they possessed. The majority were working to make a timetable when certain steps should be completed by. What was wrong with that solution. Bush's attacking a country that iss/or is appearing to disarm with only succeed in enraging more arabic/muslim people which will result in more terrorist attacks in North America. That is as plain as can be and why anybody doesn't realize this is beyond my comprehension

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic