|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 13:55:19
Hehe... I think you're trying to trap the people who are against the war here! :)...
There are two choices with Saddam:
1) He wants to be remembered as a martyr and will try to show a correct image of himself to the world - considering his high self-esteem, that would be quite possible, and the aftermath in the arab world would be very great. In that case he would not use any WMD's. This is analysis that Mr. Blix has taken.
2) He wants to leave with a big bang. If that is so, it will be a real massacre in Baghdad for both the local population and the 'coalition' forces.
(Actually nobody has publicly stated that this is possible, as this is my personal analysis, but not my personal opinion)...
But i will ask YOU a question regarding this conflict, if you were in Saddam's place (in other words, if your country was invaded with absolutely no hope of successfully defending), what would you do??? Please really think about it, and you could arrive to very astonishing conclusions...
In all cases, if Iraq uses WMD's, we should help out (with medical help), but not militarily... Its not our war. I am 99.9999% certain though that the canadian government will join the 'coalition' if that ever happens.
Anyways, since I'm very pessimistic abnout all this, one way or another, because of Article 4 of the NATO treaty, i feel that one way or another we'll join this war even though we don't want to...
p.s : If there is an international law lawyer here, could they answer me - Can a country invoke article 4 of the NATO treaty if they are attacked, even though they started by invading another country???
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-26 18:55:44
I am no expert, but I did read the Nato articles and I do think that in #4, while there is no territorial or political threat, one could argue that the US is acting according to a threat to security, and perhaps rightly so. However, the US has basically thrown out that charter, since they have breached other articles numerous times.
I believe that in most cases, Canada should take a firm stand, including a military one, against any country that uses WMD. However, if a situation arises that a country facing annhilation or policide feels it has no choice but to use them in self-defence( Which is the actual reason for the existence of WMD's in the first place) we must therefore examine the events that led up to that scenario with the most objective view possible. Is it possible that the US is not in the right? Is it possible that they have put a country in a position that they are considering using WMD as a last resort? What did Canada do to avert that situation? What did the UN do? The US is basing everyone's action on fear of the military might of the US. That in itself is not right. Canada must examine, impartially, the definition of value.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-27 03:59:46
You are right, thats why I'm pretty confused on the issue. Canada should act in a very prudent fashion if this ever happens... And maybe should lay the blame on all parties involved.
Regarding NATO Article #4, I think Canada, as a nation still respects this treaty, as well as most countries which signed it, so there lies the problem, all these countries (including France and Germany) could get involved even if they don't want to...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-03-30 23:22:17
I would rather we not get involved should this occur.
I could not bear the shame. Imagine commiting troops only because a madman did something that the U.S, and the U.K have tried to rally support in order to prevent!!
I have the feeling that he has stockpiles of WMD.
We are not priviliged individuals to see the evidence of wmd that I am sure the CIA, NSA, or Military Intel has. We must all accept that as citizens of a democratic country we elect leaders to oversee this aspect.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the CIA released a picture of a chemically armed scud missle to the media as proof? Where would that scud have ended up in a matter of hours? In the heart of Israel? In the centre of Turkey? Maybe US field bases in the Afghan area (where Canadian soldiers may well be).
This is not about Nato treaties and UN mandates anymore. The utter fact that we would be forced to now do something that we should have been doing all along will add (even more) shame us as a nation.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 02:54:03
"The utter fact that we would be forced to now do something that we should have been doing all along will add (even more) shame us as a nation. "
What shame? By trying to go through disarmement by peaceful means? I have no shame with that...
WHY? May i ask you did nobody do anything in the '80's when he used his WMD's... Even though i would still contest the legality of invading Iraq at that time - my opposition would be much less important. The good time to remove Saddam was in the '91 Gulf War...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-04-01 18:31:30
The shame that we do not stand up for the ideals that our fathers, grandfathers and brothers at arms fought for in WW2.
Peaceful means? What the heck did we try with the thousands of inspectors in and out of Iraq over the last 12 years or so.
"The good time to remove Saddam was in the '91 Gulf War... "
I agree with you, but that would have violated the UN mandate to liberate Kuwait. The current UN mandate (1441) says Iraq must disarm or face the consequences. Well Saddam is geting the consequences now.
I wish the weapons inspections would have worked, but Iraq caved in only with coalition troops on the doorstep.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-02 02:45:18
"The shame that we do not stand up for the ideals that our fathers, grandfathers and brothers at arms fought for in WW2. "
What are those ideals? This is kind of funny! How do you link it with the current context?? Did Saddam invade country and then invade another one, and then say to everyone, historically we have the right to invade this country...
Anyways, you'll see the consequences for yourself after this war is over... Either everything will be great, or the world situation will be much worst... I personally i don't see how it can get better...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 01:02:56
Codco asked "Did Saddam invade country after country" I will answer for him. No, but the USA is invading country after country. Many of us wonder; who is next?
If we want to stand up for the ideals that our fathers and grandfathers etc fought for in WWII; then we should support the UN.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-03 11:32:22
The USa is invading, but they feel its right, while we feel its wrong, so its a tough stand for both parties... The only thing if after the war the US leaves fast, I'll still be critical (since the war was still illegal after all) but much less...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 13:52:21
Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran. He attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel. He supports suicide bombers in Palestine.
He has worked to cleanse his country of Kurds - which as you know, represent the largest ethnic group on the planet without a country.
Our grandfathers did not fight in WWII to support the UN. They fought to support liberty. The difference is colossal.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 23:07:00
That was over 11 years ago; old news.
And there is evidence that the USA played a part in that problem too.
They fought as the war to end all wars, I believe.
The UN was formed with great input by the USA to handle disputes between countries.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:26:56
Fatmomma says, "That was over 11 years ago; old news".
Is that supposed to be an intellectually bankrupt statement? The no fly zones have been in place for all those years, it has been a low level conflict all this time.
We stopped to prevent further blood shed and with the hope Saddam would be overthrown.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-07 21:29:39
Yes, but the USA was doing the attacking there too. No conflict just control
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-04 02:56:10
Yes, but Saddam attacked Iran with the guidance of the western powers, so i would not even consider that...
And thats old news, as fatmomma said, why was there no reaction before?
If we think like that, then native canadians which were here before Europeans should go to war with us...and expel us back to Europe.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:27:46
.."Yes, but Saddam attacked Iran with the guidance of the western powers, so i would not even consider that..."...
Remember, that was in the context of the Cold war, to balance the Soviet Union.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-07 03:21:46
That made it acceptable to assist a dispicable dictator. What makes it acceptable for the USA to look to Turkey to assist in this war. Turkey has killed thousands of the kurds living in Turkey.
Barrett; Where are all the weapons of mass destruction that the Americans claimed Iraq possessed that were threatening America. Do you feel no shame for supporting this massacre
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 06:26:23
So since the Cold War is finished now we can get rid of him? Thats what you're saying?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-07 15:10:45
I am saying we can do better now...
Actually, I am saying we have to do better now or else face terrible consequences of WMD by "third party" terrorists.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 15:43:41
I guess it all depends of your definition of 'third party', can you please define this term? A nation which has a dictator as its leader is third party, or not? Are China and Russia third parties?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 03:30:12
why then is the usa giving Israel money and weapons to Israel. Israel continues to defy The UN by invading and occupying Palestinian territory. Israel states it will not stop these attacks even under the new American plan.
Why then did the USA give arms to African countries to obtain their support at the UN?
Why then does the USA give Turkey money for their use of Turkeys airspace. Turkey has killed many more of their Kurdish people than Iraq has.
We in Canada ARE doing better; we do not support this preemptive invasion.
This invasion may bring more terrorist attacks to North America.
We can do better; I wish the USA had done better.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-09 16:23:13
No, Canada failed completely.
We can do better. We can say to the world that we no longer tolerate oppression. Is that so terrible?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-12 03:02:15
That is what many Canadians are saying. We do not tolerate oppression and invasions; even if it is our "best friend and neighbour" that is doing the oppression and invading. They have lied and disguised this invasion first as Iraq was a threat to the USA; suddenly now it is a sudden need to "liberate the Iraqi people" and their oil. Plus as a bonus weaken the UN that attempts to meke all countries equally responsible and liable for disregarding world policy. The USA likes to have other countries held to account unless it upsets their own interests. America cannot join the ICC because their citizens are not exempt from prosecution.
Canda supports peaceful settlements and that ALL countries should be held to account for their indiscretions including the USA
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-07 18:08:14
While I agree that WWII was different, it was a case of fighting 'expansionist' Nazism and Imperialism, the US will be just as guilty as those nations if it takes any money out of Iraq or anywhere else it uses it's military.
The US supports American Liberty, and American freedom. They have funded way to many dictators who served US interests for far too long for them to have any credibility in the 'world policing' arena.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:28:40
There was a cold war. It was a real war. For every dictator the Americans propped up, the Soviets did the same.
It is not correct to talk about behaviour in the Cold War as if it was done in the same context as things are done today.
Finally, 911 changes America. The world just doesn't understand that yet.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:26:26
I agree that the world may not understand fully this, but its no reason to put into question every principle made in the last 50 years... Thats not wise at all...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-11 02:26:10
this invasion of Iraq was planned long prior to 9/11
Some very interesting information on this web site: http;//www.ncf.carleton.ca/coat/our_magazine/links/issue49/articles49_oil.pdf.
hilites:
Scott Ritter, formerly the most hawkish of UNweapons inspectors stated as of Dec 1988: Iraq is qualitively disarmed; it has no functional capacity to develop biological, chemical or nuclear weapons
1998: Clinton pulled weapons inspectors out of Iraq; this is referred to by the media as "the expullsion of weapons inspectors"
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-13 16:29:25
Scott Ritter is an extremely poor example to use. His credibility is below zero, to quote him is worst then distasteful.
If fact he is so low that understandably the details are not worth mention on a public forum such as this one.
I will leave you with this link, which spares us of the details, but gets a point across about his lack of character.
http://www.abc10.com/Global/story.asp?S=1090744&nav=6uyNDSWw
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-11 06:41:01
The cold war was a catalyst for both east and west to support dictators to spread the larger nation's interests, no doubt. However, I do not recall the US declaring that it would have no further interest in independent countries after the cold war. In fact, after the soviets could no longer sustain it's 'ideological colonialism', the US had a free hand to pursue it's aims of global domination unopposed. I think there is ample proof that they continue to do so. If anyone can show me a document or declaration which states that' the US is renouncing it's desire to influence other nations with regard to the US itself benefitting', I would like to see it.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-02 21:49:33
"Can you imagine what would have happened if the CIA released a picture of a chemically armed scud missle to the media as proof?" In response to this, I would go so far as to say that the US might have more people believe them. Even Canadians would have possibly joined in and shown the US how to fight.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-26 18:58:58
Hi codc01,
I have given a good amount of thought about Saddam and his intentions, but I'll give it more and see if I get your points about him. :)
Yeah, I didn't realize that I posed a real conundrum for anti-war people here. Well I guess that’s why our political fellows get paid the big bucks to figure out what course to take. ;)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-26 23:53:44
While I am not anti-war for war's sake, I am against this war by the US declared on Iraq. (There must have to be a declaration of war, for many reasons, we have yet to see it in legal terms, though). War is sometimes very valid and history has proven that. There is loss, civilian deaths, the whole gamut of atrocities, but in the end, it can be justified. The US, in this case, has failed to prove to the world that it is in the right. It does not seem to care, though, for it's might might make right. (thought I'd try to your make your conundrum reference punny.)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-27 11:52:35
Hi Fleabag,
I find it interesting that I agree with you in this regard, "I am not pro-war for war's sake".
Iraq has been mishandled for 12 years, the U.N. should have never procrastinated this long, it has led to yet another disaster.
If Saddam would have been disciplined before 9/11 by the U.N. we would never have seen the U.S. going to war today with Iraq. If the U.N. would have stepped in the early 90's Saddam would have been deposed by his own people.
France, German, & Russian companies selling arms & equipment to Saddam is a much larger issue then is realized, these actions under-cut the U.N. authority over the last 12 years in Iraq.
Can the U.N. be cleaned up? I am very skeptical that it can, but I realize Canada is making a play here to maintain influence on the world stage through the U.N.; I just don't want it to be on the lives of American & Iraqi people.
On a side note; I have just been sent an excel work sheet from a credible source, apparently the Iraqi Food for oil program has $8 billion dollars in the U.N. coffers currently.
-----This work sheet shows that the United Nations collects nearly $500 million dollars a year in fees from this program? This is a conflict of interest, in a sense it makes the U.N. administration a business partner of Saddam. (Note; I will see if I can find conformation of this document)
Fleabag says...."(thought I'd try to your make your conundrum reference punny.)"...
Fleabag, if Saddam uses Chemical weapons to wipe out Baghdad, that isn't punny. If Canadian actions could have done something to stop him and choose not to; this lack of action is indefensible.
(The debate about war is over, now we must pre-pare for the potential consequences).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-29 16:48:30
"The United Nations collects $500 million fees for the oil for food program" does not make them a partner of Saddam. That probably doesn't even pay their expenses. Do you believe they could do the job for free. This is not a charity case; doing it for free on other nations backs would be unfair. The USA has not paid their dues for years; why they are still allowed a vote or veto is beyond me. The countries who do not pay their dues are a large part of the UN's problem.
It will not be Canada's fault if Saddam uses chemical weapons. Canada and the UN were doing something. We sent weapon inspectors. If more nations paid their dues; they could have provided more weapons inspectors.
More to the point would be: if North America is attacked by more terrorist due to a percieved unfair attack on a DISARMING nation due to Muslim and Arab anger for this uncalled for war; will the USA / Britain accept the blame.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 00:40:42
..."It will not be Canada's fault if Saddam uses chemical weapons."...
If we do nothing to minimize Saddam's use of WMD by all means available then we have failed.
On a side note; "This was good to see"
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030328_1902.html
..."Canada and the UN were doing something. We sent weapon inspectors. If more nations paid their dues; they could have provided more weapons inspectors."...
Well you know we disagree here, South Africa and the Ukraine disarmed and the UN didn't need an army of weapon inspectors on the ground to accomplish the task.
..."More to the point would be: if North America is attacked by more terrorist due to a perceived unfair attack on a DISARMING nation due to Muslim and Arab anger for this uncalled for war;"...
I understand your point about "more terrorists" and that Saddam is using this war as a "recruitment drive".
To state from the U.S. perspective, “What is the worst these terrorist are going to do, try and kill us, they are already doing that.”
In other words Islamic extremists are already trying to kill Americans; if these extremists had nukes on 9/11, those would have been used in stead of planes.
Unfair attack on a DISARMING nation.
Could you honestly sit down with Saddam, look him in the eye and believe that?
In other words should the U.S. government “Trust” Saddam with millions of Americans lives considering Muslim people already call Saddam the butcher of Baghdad? Do you want Saddam to become known as the Butcher of New York, or Butcher of Washington DC? Or perhaps London?
If Saddam was DISARMING, why does he have new Russian anti-tank weapons? Why was a long range missile launched into a Mall in Kuwait when Saddam claimed to have non. Why are there 1000’s anti-chemical suits? The list goes on and on and on over 12 years.
We could continue to debate the war, but it is mute point because war has started, all we can do now is prepare for the consequences.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-30 20:35:00
One mans weapon of mass destruction is another mans means of liberation.
The entire discussion about wmd (gopod how I've come to hate that inane and empty little phrase!) is disingenuous.
As is the discussion about terrorist tactics being used against coalition troops. In my imagination I keep hearing the lords and generals at the Court of George the Third during the US Revolution declaiming against the American irregulars. "Your Majesty, they hide in the trees and fire upon us like cowards. They don't wear proper uniforms either."
I found this editorial at Al-Jazeera.
None So Blind...
30 March 2003, Arab News
An Iraqi in a taxi containing explosives has become the first known suicide bomber of the war to succeed in taking some of the US invaders with him. By itself, his attack is simply another bit of bloodletting in this unnecessary war. But what makes the event so significant is not that it happened (though the fact that it did will be causing considerable unease among America and its allies), but the way in which Washington has reacted to this slaying of at least four of its soldiers.
The cry has gone up from the American camp that suicide bombings are the acts of terrorists, therefore this attack proves, beyond all doubt, the long-argued American case that Iraq is a terrorist state. Thus Washington was right all along to invade, and the sooner Saddam Hussein can be put out of business, the safer the world will be.
There is none so blind as they that won’t see.
This ignorant and deeply stupid analysis just about sums up the level of what seems to pass for serious thought in George W. Bush’s White House.
Put aside for a moment the obvious objection that had there been no invasion in the first place, there would have been no suicide bombing in reaction to it, terrorist or otherwise —in other words, that the proof of this particular pudding was not in the eating — and bring the debate to a level that the current mindset of the US administration is more attuned to.
Imagine instead that one of Davy Crockett’s men had volunteered to charge a wagonload of explosives out of the fort and straight into Santana’s forces surrounding the Alamo, in an attempt to break the Mexicans’ aggressive resolve. Would not that man now be high in the pantheon of US heroes? Indeed are not Davy Crockett himself and the rest his volunteers roundly honored for their bravery and self-sacrifice, which held off an invader long enough for his campaign to lose momentum and falter?
Were Davy Crockett and his men terrorists for throwing away their lives in a hopeless action against vastly superior might? If an American answers that they were not, then he is accepting that neither was the Iraqi suicide bomber in his taxi.
Davy Crockett is a hero to the Americans. Every citizen remembers the Alamo. Can Washington therefore appreciate that the Iraqi in the taxi is going to be a hero as well, when his name and his self-sacrifice become known, and that he will be a hero not just in Iraq but throughout the Arab world ?
If they can imagine this, maybe the Bush White House will go the extra intellectual mile and understand that the guy in the taxi in Iraq was no more laying down his life for his president in Baghdad than the guy in the raccoon hat was dying for his president in Texas. Both men chose to die because they loved and wanted to defend their homeland. An attack against one Texan or one Iraqi was an attack against all Texans and all Iraqis.
But America of course cannot ascribe to its enemies the noble and decent motives it is happy to honor among its own heroes. For Washington, there can be no equivalence between Iraqis and Americans. Yet consider this: One of them has a warmongering, bloodthirsty president, elevated to his position in a sham election, who is happy to slaughter innocents to promote his world vision. The other has Saddam Hussein.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 22:18:01
One mans weapon of mass destruction is another mans means of liberation.
banquosghost, Liberation from who? Saddam Hussein?
No one of "sound mind" believes Saddam is the hero of the Islamic world. In the U.S. at the time, the Americans were fighting for democracy, for individual rights, in Iraq they fight for a fake Icon (Saddam).
Even the Germans and Japanise didn't realize this untill the end of WWII...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 02:39:23
"No one of "sound mind" believes Saddam is the hero of the Islamic world. "
I think you should read more about the Arab world, and you'll see that a lot of people consider Saddam a hero...
I think you need to place yourself in the heads of the arab worlds population, they resent israel, they resent that nobody cares about the palestinian people, now they're 100% certain that the US is there for helping israel..., a lot of those people live in misery, and only with minimal education...
The problem most people have, both in the US and the arab world, is that they don't know the facts, so they live in their illusionary worlds... and this will bring a big clash...
p.s : Don't tell me that the majority of the US population knows the real facts, since i will not believe you, unless you have very solid proof... Go question them why they are doing this war, and you'll have a lot of varied answers!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-02 01:25:15
"they are 100% certain that the USA is there for helping Israel" They may believe that but I am beginning to wonder ; Was Israel used by the USA to create enough unrest in the middle east so the USA could find an excuse to attack.
No most American people do not know the facts; those who do are silenced or discredited.
Why do we not see interviews of Al Gore or Jimmy Carter. Usually, in times of crisis for a country; politics are put aside.
I wish I could trust the American leadership. I hope the American people take a good look at their leadership before it is too late; if it isn't too late already.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-02 11:54:52
The problem as you said is that the media as a whole in the Us is too patriotic (patriotism is good, but not when its in excess)... I think the British press and news has a more balanced opinion...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-30 23:29:52
I read this article tonight as well. I found it on arabnews.com. I think the world needs a serious 'heart to heart' that is not depicted by hearts lying next to hearts.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-30 22:11:02
Hmmm The long range missle that hit the mall in Kuwait; that remains to be proven. The Kuwaiti people indicated they believed it to be American, Of course the Americans may have paid them hush money by now. The American people should wonder why their government is paying Israel 10 billion dollars to compensate them for the disturbance or danger from this war. Israel is a big cause of problems in the middle east and refuses to obey UN resolutions. Why because they are allowed to hide behind Uncle Sam. What does "Operation
Iraqi Liberation" initials spell???
OIL.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 23:01:11
If the U.S. wanted oil, then why not lift the sanctions? That would provide plenty of oil.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-31 20:31:42
The US does not want just access to the oil. It wants the proceeds as well. Their justification is that Saddam gets the money now, lifting the sanctions won't help the people.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 23:08:15
Israel is a big cause of problems in the middle east and refuses to obey UN resolutions.
One thing that troubles me, is that the U.N. now says the wall to separate Israel and Palestine is not legal. Forget the U.N., build the darn wall and stop the killing, use Cyprus as the model.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 02:27:23
Can you please give your source of information regarding this? It would be surprising if the UN actually said that :( And it all depends where the wall is built, no? If its built on Israel soil, the UN should have nothing to say...
As i stated in several places, Israel and Palestinians are both to blame for the mess they are in, and I'm against offensive actions by any party, but defensive actions in protecting their people (such as building a wall),even though its a real shame... I don't think they had much choice.
As i also stated in a french response, the UN is mostly a failure, but not entirely, but its the only thing we have, so we have to live with it... hoping it will be better one day.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-04-01 18:36:20
Wait, who created Israel? Remember who?
Our favorite organized Body the UN.
Since you stated Oil, it is my own policy not to address this portion of the thread ever again because everything you have to say about this current situation is now discredited in my own mind.
This is only my opinion,(backed by facts) of course.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-02 19:06:02
That's some good thinking, discrediting all points on the basis of one aspect of your personal opinion. Now think about this: If all people had the same method of problem solving, would we have a unified, peaceful world? Or would we have 4 1/2 billion Nations of One?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-04 23:20:45
It was not the creation of Israel that is the problem. It is the USA's over protection and favorism of Israel that has created more unrest. Israel does as it pleases or what pleases their benefactor the USA. If the two peoples were left on their own they might have been able to come to some degree of peaceful understanding by now.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 00:56:52
..."The United Nations collects $500 million fees for the oil for food program" does not make them a partner of Saddam. That probably doesn't even pay their expenses. Do you believe they could do the job for free."...
There is still a conflict of interest here, you just asked, “Do I believe the U.N. could do the job for free?” No the U.N. can’t do the job for free, that is why the U.N. food for oil program is a business transaction and Saddam is a partner in that business”.
Saddam until recently used this U.N. system to keep control of the populace as 60% rely on it for food and survival, another reason the U.N. sanctions are a failure.
The U.N. should have Sanctioned Saddam by providing his food and welfare from a prison cell, not extend that prison cell to encompass the country of Iraqi citizens.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-30 15:35:21
There is no conflict. This program is monitored by the UN to prevent abuses and to be sure that Iraq does not import weapons with the money. I expect better from you Barret. I have seen credible evidence that the USA manipulate middle eastern countries to bring about the first war on Iraq. That claims of Saddam using chemicals on his own people is unproven or false.
Perhaps Bush and Saddam could share adjoining cells as both could be considered war criminals. My sources come from the USA.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 22:00:54
..."There is no conflict. This program is monitored by the UN to prevent abuses and to be sure that Iraq does not import weapons with the money. I expect better from you Barret."...
Now be nice, I'll explain my position better.
The bottom line is that we have the U.N. collecting 500 million dollars a year and that same agency is trying to be an honest broker to remove WMD from Saddam.
If we want to remove the conflict of interest, then the U.N. must turn the money and the program over to a third party such as Red Cross or the Canadian program. CIDA (I think it is called). The U.N. must not use this money to "provide" U.N. salaries.
I am not saying the U.N. is corrupt in the oil for food program, just that a conflict is evident.
To take it one step further, Saddam has influence over the program indirectly and has manipulated the program to make a large part of the population dependent on it. The U.N. food for oil program is the perfect crutch for Saddam to use as a method of controlling the people of Iraq.
As I understand it, the U.N. only has control over the program on paper and not on the soil in Iraq.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-27 03:55:17
I'm pretty confused myself, Canada should condemn the usage of WMD's. They should help the victims, as for military action, after rethinking about it, I'm completely neutral now about it, I'd let our politicians decide....
Legaly it would be wrong to help the USA in that case, since its their fault, by starting the war, but morally i don't think we could look without acting, they are our friend after all.
On the other hand, i may also understand Saddam's motivation for using WMD's, even though i disapprove, i would understand...
As you can see, my mind is currently quite confused on this matter...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-27 00:08:09
There is a good article in the Toronto Star, Wed. March 26th by Thomas Walkom.
"Is Saddam winning the political war"
It does a great job of explaining how Saddam is winning the propaganda war and that is why he will probably not use WMD even if he has them. That he is willing to become a martyr to unit the Arab world against the Western World.
This is what I have believed all along but could not express as well as he did.
This is one reason I did not approve of this war and why I believe it could lead to more terrorist attack within North America. To the participant who was having difficulty finding the right words; I am finding the same problem; I think we are on brain overload from all the twists and turns and "misleading"
propaganda.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 01:09:32
..."It does a great job of explaining how Saddam is winning the propaganda war and that is why he will probably not use WMD even if he has them. That he is willing to become a martyr to unit the Arab world against the Western World."...
Saddam is no martyr for any cause except his own.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-30 16:12:16
"Saddam is no martyr for any cause except his own. "
I think everyone knows that here, Saddam has such an ego, its incredible, but the arab population will see him as a martyr, like it or not...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-30 18:25:27
yes, codco, that was my point. That is what makes it so dangerous. The UN way would have kept the world more peaceful;less divided and suspicious of motives. This invasion could create more terrorists. I am sure he knows exactly what I was trying to point out.
We don't need someone like Saddam becoming a symbol anyone would admire.
It is not likely to happen in Western countries but it could in the Middle East.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-30 19:25:43
What if the Bush coalition uses banned weapons. I just read a second reference that claims embedded reporters were told that the coalition forces used napalm (banned by the UN since 1980) in taking Safwan Hill near Basra. My latest source was Business Week Online. I will add this has been denied. Who do we believe
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 03:01:35
That would surprise me? Napalm? Why?
I do have some problems with some of those 'rules' in a war... for me war is war... Even though i agree with the Geneva Convention.
Did you know that usage of chemical 'weapons' is banned in a war? This includes pepper spray and other such non-lethal agents!!
So in other words, either you surrender, or you get killed!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-31 20:38:54
The US has not proven themselves to be 'just and fair' fighters lots of times. A 'false white flag' you say? That is how the Seminole Indians in Florida were defeated. A white flag was used by US troops to lure the leader of the Seminoles, (his name escapes me at the moment) into a US Army fort and he was imprisoned. Then the 'good guys' proceeded to eradicate the rest of the Seminoles and created the great state of Florida. Past history you say? Why don't they give it back?
Reply to this message
|
|
