|
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
|
Show in topic
|
|
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
|
|
