|
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
|
Show in topic
|
|
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
|
|
