|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-18 00:49:21
The US has issued a 'call to arms' for every man, woman and child to decide whether they are on side with the US or not. Unfortunately, I believe what they are saying, is in effect, "you will be subservient to our needs, or you will be defeated by us".
Selfishness is the most dangerous path anyone person or government can possibly follow. Grand if you ulimately win, even for a few generations, as a whole valley of 'the kings of Egypt' must have felt, but not long term thinking.
I shall not choose to side with the US, and I'm glad out PM thinks so too, for I would hate to see Canada torn asunder by pursuit of greed.
Aristotle once wrote, " It remains true that the greatest injustices proceed from those who pursue excess, not from those who are driven by neccesity."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-18 13:17:31
In due time, i think the US will loose their economic strength (though they will probably remain the military superpower for a very long time still)... and then a real multilateral world will emerge. We just have to be patient.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-18 15:57:26
I don't think a real multilateral world will emerge so long as governments are not representative of their citizens and accountable to their citizens.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 06:58:12
In a perfect world i would entirely agree with you, and accountability is always important. We don't live in a perfect world, sometimes the citizens of a country do not have enough indepth knowledge to have a correct and objective opinion...
Even here in this discussion group, most people here know their facts and are knowledgeable in their discussions, but is it true that if you ask the same questions to someone on the street they will know all the facts to have an objective (or partially objective) opinion?
Its a fine line being always representative of the citizens and making upopular decisions which are actually for the good of the citizens, even if these citizens disagree with the government... (For example, all the government budget cuts in the '90's nobody wanted them, but now practically no one in their right mind would accept the Canadian government going back into debt and deficit, and the majority now accepts that it was a necessary evil)...
Where is this fine line? I don't know the answer... Maybe a referendum system like in Switzerland would be the best??
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-18 18:41:43
I agree. The US dollar is presently viewed as 'strong', yet they are trillions in debt and plan (in the latest budget) to use deficit spending for the next 10 years. Their 'value' is that of "The Emporer's New Clothes", where the US dollar is valued on belief alone. It's economy is based on a house of cards. Entertainment, professional sports and cheap labour from countries such as China, where no labour standards exist are the largest moneymakers fueling the system. Once people realize 'Oprah' is not actually worth anything, that the millions paid to Tiger Woods could be better used for all mankind, not the few glorified in the 'cult of personality', the card house will tumble. Perhaps war is the only thing the US understands, and that the effects of war will eventually make people realize what is actually important. When one's house and possessions are destroyed by war, reruns of Seinfeld lose their value in a hurry.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-18 19:38:22
"Aristotle once wrote, " It remains true that the greatest injustices proceed from those who pursue excess, not from those who are driven by necessity." ..."
Actually, I believe necessity is not a reliable gauge of righteousness because people can have very different views of what is "necessary"...leading to big "arguments". I think many atrocities were deemed "necessary" - did Hitler not think his actions were necessary for Germany? Anyway, Aristotle was only human.
In the same light, the primary motive voiced by Bush *is* one of necessity - to rein in rogue nations that would develop, supply and use WMD; as well as the necessity to bring credibility to UN resolutions on Iraq.
If you look at how much Bush is risking to lose by pursuing this course of action I think the likelihood that it is a plot to acquire oil and superpower excess is simply not believable.
The US does not need oil. Its economy already beats most other nations and alternate sources of oil and energy are available. As for superpower excess, the preferred modus operandi of a sole superpower is actually stealth. That means.. "if you have it you do not want to advertise the fact".
Just like a monopoly, a sole superpower is most successful when it does not advertise what it is. I don't have any compliments for Bush's style but he is not making any bones about what the US is doing. Bush is not flaunting power because he enjoys it. He is risking his entire political career and the future of his country and the world. The same goes for Blair, he is being roasted for speaking up and he knows it may likely be fatal to his career. Compare that to the easy, opportunistic roles played by Chirac, Schroeder and a few other PMs. Those other ones are the real "jackals".
True leadership like the lives of prophets often exacts personal sacrifice and invites bitter criticism from the people being served. Reality is seldom welcomed.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 17:15:34
"Chirac, Schroeder and a few other PMs. Those other ones are the real "jackals""
It will be quite a zoo, on one side we have jackals, and on the other side we have vultures (Bush, Blair)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-19 20:29:49
If any one country needs oil it is the US. The pursuit of excess is the American Dream. Ask anyone what 'personal sucess' means and Most everyone will say 'being rich'. The US is vastly wealthy compared to the rest of the world. What is the only thing that they could pursue? More. What lies after more? All.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-19 22:00:05
"Just like a monopoly, a sole superpower is most successful when it does not advertise what it is."
Rome certainly kept it's preeminence pretty quiet. The Khans were almost obsessive about making sure no one knew about them. Not many knew about Great Britain's empire and power. Gopod knows France's day in the sun was almost entirely a secret.
Empires throw their weight around. They have to. If they don't every upstart yahoo will think they've got what it takes. So to prevent that they become "preemptive".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-20 23:07:04
I'm a little baffled by your "byzantine" comparisons but okay, by your analogies the US will colonize Iraq and won't leave unless they're forced to. We'll have to see then, won't we?
BTW, have you ever taken a course in microeconomics?
Throwing one's weight around is a heck of a lot more work than just sitting back, collecting your profits and taking luxury vacations in those countries that you avoid having to throw "your weight" upon. I mean, you never know what some disgruntled waiter might throw in your soup...;#}
Oppression works best when the victims are unaware of it.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: invitation
Date: 2003-03-22 06:00:47
How unfortunate that you interpret the position of the U.S. administration as war-mongering, self-serving and power-hungry. Do you honestly think that anyone wants war?? I assume that the "greed" alluded to in this statement refers to oil interests. Tony Blair stated that neither Britain nor the U.S. had significant vested interest in Iraq's oil--unlike France.
I have the following points to make:
1. The U.N. has demonstrated its ineffectiveness for TWELVE years in the inability to make the Hussein regime accountable to it's agreement to disarm. There has never been a "change of heart" on the part of the Iraqui regime. The only compliance elicited from them came from military troops amassing on their borders. I believe the U.S. is far more accurate in their perception than the view propose by M. Chretien and his Liberals. The fact remains that you CANNOT negotiate with terrorists because the end goal is NOT for peace.
2. The impact of war is deplorable for either side (not "grand if you win"). Where was the humanitarian outcry for the many thousands of Iraquis who have died as a result of this Stalin-like regime?--unable to disagree for fear of mutilation or death. As well as Iraquis, Suddam's aggression toward its neighbours is well-documented.
3. It seems the current Liberal gov't.has overlooked the obvious in favour of "appearances" that are "politically correct". The U.S. is almost entirely responsible for our on-going security both economically and militarily, much as M. Chretien's ego hates to admit-- i.e. the U.S. is our biggest trading partner and without their military "power", we would be in very sad shape re our national defense. Indeed, the reduction of our armed forces over the years reflects our obvious dependance. The lack of respect and loyalty to our closest neighbour was demonstrated on two ocassions: the time lag in the P.M. responding to Pres. Bush following 9/11, and the sorry effort of Canada to verbally support the coalition before public pressure finally elicited a begrudged response.
4. I find M. Chretien's behaviour very arrogant. You and I had better hope that (in his words), this "will not cause any change in our relationship with the U.S." Once again, we will have to rely on the good-will of the American gov't. which I hope is a great deal more than what our gov't. has shown them. Respectfully, J. Webb
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-22 18:37:27
No, my allusion to greed does not mean specifically oil, I mean it in a prime-motivator, or dogma aspect. The fact that statements were issued to appease the fears that this action is soley motivated by oil interests does not mean that they are true. Lying to accomplish a larger goal has been done in the past. The US, for example, lied to the world about their motivations regarding the invasion of Panama, and concealed the truth from their own people by manipulating the media. The UN issued a resolution demanding the immediate stop to their invasion, and demanded the withdrawl of their troops. The UN also demanded that the US honour the treaty signed between Truillos and Carter giving control of the canal back to Panama in 1999. The UN, however, was powerless to enforce thier resolutions, and the US went ahead and arrested Noriega, a US Army and CIA paid contractor when he refused to tear up the treaty.
In response to your points,
1. Yes, you can negotiate with terrorists if it serves US interests. The Iran-Contra affair was exactly that. Money and arms were traded with a nation that had kidnapped US citizens. The monies received were used to fund other terrorists, the Contras, in central America to secure US interests there. If it serves US interests, there is no foul, for US interests are perceived to be the greatest good.
2. The US has supported many terrible dictators in the past, and present, so the arguement that they wish to oust dictators for the benefit of Humanity is false. They help dictators when they have ecomnomic interests there, they oust those who do not serve the interests of the US. Saddam's biggest 'faux-pas' seems to be adopting the Euro, and not the US dollar, as it's currency of choice. Saddam's aggression against his neighbors, notably Iran and Kuwait, are indeed well documented. In which case did the US act? When Iraq was at war with Iran, did the US help Iran? No. There was nothing to gain for the US. Instead they grew richer by selling both sides arms. Kuwait, on the other hand, had a US freindly regime.(even though, in Kuwait, one cannot publish a book or a map that implies the existence of Israel).
3. Cretien did the right thing by siding with the UN and international precedent by not supporting ANY nation commiting policide without the express consent of the UN. The world will go to hell so much faster if any or all countries, no matter who they are, decide that they can take 'International Law' into their own hands. It is a principle matter, not an individual case matter. While I agree our PM should have been more forthcoming in his support after 9/11, this Iraqi invasion is completely different. Almost the entire 'coalition of the willing' is only acting in name alone, and only because of economic interests, like US, IMF and World Bank loan guarantees. Those names were bought.
4. The trade between Canada and the US is not in as great a jeopardy as many fear. Canada has much more of what we both need and the US is aware of it. We don't need as much 'Geraldo' as they need fresh water, oil, and softwood lumber.
In closing, I would like to say that the US only acts in their own self interests, they always have and always will. Saddam Hussein should have been arrested for the use of poison gas against the Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels, and perhaps at the time the US would have been welcomed as the 'police'. Not now, though. Bush has damaged the reputation of the US, perhaps even fatally, by his open declaration that the US is above international law and will conquer the world by force.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-24 13:41:57
1) Maybe we could negotiate with Terrorists pre-911. Not anymore.
2) Please remember there was a Cold War going on for the last 50 years. Dictators have been served notice. Time's up for them.
3) Chretien commited a grave error because he chose the rule of law over the principle of law. To say that Japan, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia and Italy are in the coalition of the willing for financial gain is a little silly.
4) Canada-US trade will not be significantly affected. Our decisions should not be based on economic considerations, rather they should be made on moral grounds.
I agree, the US acts in its own self-interest. But what is that interest?
To live in a world with normal countries and normal leaders who want peace, justice and stability for the entire world. To rid the world of people who espouse dealth cults, suicide and mass murder. To end the legitimizing effects the UN has on the world's despots and tyrants.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-24 19:47:23
I absolutely agree with point #4, and I believe that is why Chretien took the stand that he did.
Regarding to your last paragraph, I would only change a few words.
" The US desires a world with normal countries and normal leaders who want peace and stability for the US.(All others would represent an opportunity for Arms sales and resource exploitation)."
" To rid the world of people who espouse death cults, suicide as a means of terror, and mass murder when they do not serve US interests."
" To end the legitimizing effects the UN has on the world's despots and tyrants who do not serve US interests."
Yes I am twisting your words, but with precedent, I think.
China has openly crushed democracy, refuses human rights monitoring, and has committed acts of international aggression (the annexation of Tibet, their refusal to acknowledge the right to self-determination of Taiwan, referring to it as a 'naughty province', etc) yet the US (and Canada) continue to give it #1 status as a trading partner.
It is BECAUSE they have no human rights that they are able to offer profitable labour and therefore crushing democracy in this case serves US interests. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, indeed many hard-line Muslim countries that live by Sharia Law which the west finds deplorable, are considered key US allies as long as they continue to serve US interests. When they do not, the US 'stands up for human rights' and denounces them. When they do serve US interests, they can count on a veto by the US in the UN security council.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-03-30 23:02:24
I agree with "fleabag"
Unforunatly, the minute someone cries that the US is only after Oil, with respect, I completly discredit anything else that they have to say regarding this subject.
Simply put, if you follow technology, if you understand even minor economics, you will know that once all that oil becomes 'uncapped' per say (when saddam is gone) you have all this excess supply flooding the market.
Supply UP, demand unchanged, ---> price DOWN. Profit Down.
With regard to technology, once we finally make a cheap alternative to petrol powered engines (within 10 years guaranteed) what will happen to the oil company who holds the Hot Potatoe? ie, the excess supply of oil that no one wants.
That my friends is why oil is not the issue. And even if I am slightly wrong with the conclusions I made above, we must recognize that if oil really was the issue, the allies controlled every oil well in Iraq in the early 90's. Why did we pull back if we needed it so badly?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-30 23:19:41
I wonder if there might not be a pertinent addition to your equation that may be an influential 'unvariable'. The finite supply of oil. 'Supply' in such a simple equation implies a limitless supply.
Replacing it will not happen while it is still profitable, but it will eventually run out. When the end is near, the reserves will be the most valuable thing on earth(to some).
PS I used to discredit people's posts right after the first spelling/grammatical error, but since I'm not perfect either, I try to read everything now.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-04-01 18:46:18
There is an estimate 30-40yr supply of oil left in the world. In my opinion we will move from oil to alternates within the 10-15 years.
Once we see the benefits, especially in automobiles there will be less demand for the 30-40 year supply estimated to remain. In my opinion that makes all this oil a hot potatoe that no one will want to have.
PS. This is a discussion forum where people are writing out things they think and feel at thatinstantaneous moment. Of course spelling errors and grammar errors will occur, because we all don't think in perfect sentances.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 01:24:18
Traffi,did you invented some wonder alternative to oil; 10 years guaranteed.
You are dreaming.
A responsible government would not flood the market; these markets are all well controlled to avoid low prices. You may believe the USA would be this irresponsible but I doubt it; but they may need it to fuel their next war.
Iraq's oil is not that substantial; It is control of the middle east that Bush is seeking now.
Canada has more oil reserves (oil sands included). We will probably not be the next target as Mulroney ensured the USA can have as much of our oil as they want; irregardless of any environmental objections we may have. ( Or so I have read) Can't trust any source these days.
The USA pulled back from Iraq because the believed they could get a better deal / cooperation from Kuwait.
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
