|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-30 20:44:24
Redundant. Did we think the Bush administration would be pleased? Did we think that they'd respond to us any differently than they did to the "cheese eating surrender monkeys"? Or to "old Europe"?
The threats of recrimination aren't over either. There will be more. And there's a very strong possibility that the Canadian government will end up knuckling under. I have very little faith that Paul Martin has any scruples beyond those of the bottom line of a balance sheet. Gopod I hope he doesn't become the next PM. Don't buy into his crap about balancing the budgets and eliminating the deficit. He did it by eliminating transfer payments to the provinces. No creative financial management whatever. His response to international crisis points is liable to just as amoral, empty and self-aggrandizing as well. He'll be in the Bush administrations back pocket so fast and deep it'll make Brian Mulroney singing "Irish Eyes" look like a protest song.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-30 22:01:43
Cellucci should be expelled; that is not what an ambassador is here for. He is supposed to be very diplomatic.
I will wait to see who is running and their platform but It will not be Harper; he is an embarrassment and juvenile and in the Americans back pocket. I really dislike that person equal to how I dislike that pompous Mulroney who sold us out to the American interests. I really hope the American public has a regime change as soon as possible.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 23:03:35
Cellucci is to represent the atmosphere of his country to the host country. Don't kick out the messenger because you don't like the message.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-30 23:25:58
You are right, Barretm82. He is just doing his job. His personal opinion may have varied, but his job was to relay that sentiment. (in fact, he probably has to keep his personal opinion out of his job).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-03-30 23:10:54
Expel him? Why?
Expel Iraqi diplomats FIRST.
Is it just me, or am I one of few Canadians who think that my future is being ruined by what is going on today at the diplomatic level with our government.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 02:43:31
Nobody should be expelled ...
Neither the Iraq representative (yes, Iraq's official government still exists - so unless the diplomats are spies, they should be allowed to stay!),
nor the US ambassador, he's just making a big fire to make more political turmoil in Canada (with quite some success!), but that is his right!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-31 18:59:37
It depends on what your view of what the future should be like before you can say 'ruined'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-04-01 18:24:52
Ruined:
Canada US Relations is the most important aspect of our two nations that must be protected.
I value these things:
The Continental Security provided by the US.
The economic and business oppurtunities created by our somewhat open border and free trade agreements.
Most of all, I value the fact that because our once proud country that fought facist europe will no longer stand up for freedom, we can always rely on the US to complete the task started in WW2.
If you don't value the last point,ask our veterens.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-02 02:53:09
You are telling me that because we have big economic ties with the US, we should not follow our own foreign policy... Thats what I'm reading in your message....
I value morality over money any day...
(I'm sure we might not agree on the values of morality, but this is another story, in your message you seem concerned about our economy)...
Again the link with WWII, can you elaborate with facts, how do you see the link? Did Saddam try to invade your country and try to rule the world?
Is it because of WWII you support this war? This does not make sense...
I know veterans of WWII, and i know how it affected them, and i can tell you i admire them for what they did.
Soldiers follow orders, whatever these orders... So i don't even see the point with the current situation, please elaborate.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-02 18:59:45
I value our veterans immensely. My father lost an arm in the Canadian Navy in WWII (he was 18yrs in '44 and is still alive and reasonably well) and I am proud of him and all of his comrades.
In regards to the USA in WWII, if you recall, they did not want to get involved and only did so reluctantly, but very profitably. Our country does stand up for freedom, and always will.
The problem lies in the fact that 'pre-emptive self defense' is a very subjective card to play, and the US provided very dubious evidence regarding an 'imminent threat' from Iraq.
I believe 'Operation "Shock And Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis, but for the rest of us who dare to think otherwise.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-01 16:33:11
fatmomma,
an Ambassador is here to represent their nation. Mr. Cellucci is an agent of the US and as such, his words, irrespective of whether we agree with them are perfectly acceptable as long as they reflect the feelings of his own government.
Your bitterness to the Rt. Hon. Mulroney from signing on to a rules based trading agreement (FTA and later the NAFTA) shows an ignorance of the economy that Canada development since WWII.
If we wish to have the US respect our views of the world, then we must also show that same respect back. Calling for the expulsion of a US ambassador simply because we dislike the message from Washington is an embarrassment and juvenile.
While I do support the war, I do so because I feel it is right. That is what Canada needs today, a leader who can say we stand for something - Harper has done that, regardless of whether you are agree or disagree with him. To use the words of Thoreau, "(b)e not simply good, be good for something."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 00:44:19
Mulroney was neither right or honorable.The free trade agreement was long after WWII. The USA plays games over free trade with Canada. Mulroney did not make a good deal for Canada; he made a good deal for his own interests and pockets. That is what nearly wiped out the conservative party.
The USA has no right to constantly question our stand; Canada's stand was in keeping with our beliefs; we are free to make our own decisions. I do not believe it is proper to threaten us with trade difficulties for making our
own decisions. It is the USA/British coalition that is out of step with the world and the UN.
Our leader, Mr Cretien did stand up for our Canadian beliefs.
Mr Harper wants to rubber stamp the US; he would agree to joining this war; not because it is right and whatmost Canadian want but because it is what Mr. Bush wants. That is not a leader; that is a puppy dog.
Iraq was not shown to be a threat to world peace; but this war by MR Bush and MR Blair is. It is creating more hate and distrust in the world and will
encourage more terrorist acts in North America. This has even been acknowledge
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-03 13:45:59
Irrespective one's personal feelings of Mulroney, as far as a foreign an economic policy, he did establish several key areas of what Canadians now consider an honourable foreign policy. It was Mr. Mulroney who worked bilaterally with the United States to established the Acid Rain Treaty. Protection of the artic was high on the agenda. Not to mentioned it was Canada that lead the Commonwealth in the removal of apartheid South Africa. The Multicultural Act is also one of Mulroney's legacy items to Canada (despite my opposition to it). However, the crown jewel of Mulroney's time in office was the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). However, Free Trade should be another thread on this board.
You say that the US has no right to question our stand, yet the world seems to be questioning theirs. If we have the right to ask why they are going to war, then surly they must have the same right to question why we are not going to war? We went into Kosovo without the UN, yet we are not going into Iraq. We claimed it was humanitarian in the former case, yet thousands of Iraqis dieing each month in the latter does not appear to make the same qualification. We support the war on terror and proved so by toppling the regime in Afghanistan, yet we do not do the same in Iraq even given the numerous violations of the UN resolutions over the past twelve years (looking at the time Saddam has been in power makes the case even more convincing for his removal). The worst part is, this is the same government under Jean Chrétien I am referring to. So what values are the current Liberals standing for? Mr Harper has gone on the record that saying that it is just wrong not be going into Iraq. He has been on record for saying that opinion polls be damned, that we must make a moral decision. The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair subjected himself to a debate in his House of Commons, in which he defended his position. I have yet to hear a reason from my government other then, we would go, but only if the UN agrees. That is not a moral position, that is abdication of responsibility for making a moral decision.
The outcome of this war is unknown - here is hoping for another Germany and France.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-03 21:49:26
While I agree with some of your message, there are a few points I could make as to why we should have taken the stand we did.
Firstly, defying UN resolutions. Many countries have defied the UN, so that argument is somewhat invalid. Israel has defied them for a longer period, in a greater number, and has actually shot and killed UN workers. (and denied them medical assistance). If Iraq did this, it would have been front page news in the west.
Secondly, public debate is sorely needed, and Mr. Blair deserves some commendation for standing up to speak his mind.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, refused an offer to debate Saddam Hussein publicly, when this could have gone a long way to 'bring truth out in the open' but I believe that would have been the last thing Mr. Bush wants.
Finally, I must say that while deciding to back a UN resolution, not just a 'coalition of the coerced' resolution, was the right thing to do. It may seem on the surface like an excuse, but it would have been far more damaging to our relations if we would have said "You made your bed, you must lie in it. Your greed-driven manipulation of world affairs has made you the most hated nation on earth. Why should we support yet another aggressive, greedy action when your motives are so clear? Your policy has been unchanged for decades, America #1, all else yield, by hook or by crook".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-05 12:15:52
I must that I still disagree that we should not be involved in this comment. My reasons have less to do with Mr. bush (and I will say that I fully support the Rt. Hon. Blair - he has shown true leadership), but rather it harkens back to the days of late 1960s.
I find it most odd that the people I find that best show the reasons why we should be involved in Iraq come from the historical left. It was Escott Reid in 1968 that stated:
"No nation has the right to try and solve its problems by methods which involve the destruction of the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. These fundamental rights and freedoms include the right to protection by the state from mob tyranny and the right to a fair trial. This is what national and international declarations and statutes on fundamental freedoms are all about."
That sounds like a good policy to me. I wish we were following it with the current war on Iraq.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 16:32:41
Hi RCGGILLIS,
Are you saying we should wait for mushroom clouds on our soil before we stop Saddam or his sons?
Do you think Saddam is nuts enough to pass WMD to a 3rd party? Would you trust Saddam with our lives?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-06 14:59:42
Barretm82,
Actually, I do agree wit the US/UK coalition of the willing. The point I was trying to make is that in the past, as noted by Escott Reid, Canada stood for something. We were able to make the tough moral decisions that were required of us. We stood along side our NATO allies and worked with the US in NORAD to ensure that we were safe. It was then they were worked in the multilateral environment under Pearson to establish peacekeeping efforts around the world.
I think Canada should be involved in the war on Iraq. The Iraqi people are the ones having their rights violated by their own government. I think we as Canadians know that the regime of Saddam is wrong, and thus we should be standing up against him, irrespective of the UN. I think I have articulated my position better then in the above post if you care to read them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-06 17:19:23
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
Yeah, sometimes we miss things when we read too quickly. oops... :)
Good to see you on the forum.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-06 22:34:54
While I agree with the text of your speech, as it were, I disagree that the US has this as practical dogma.
Canada disagreed with the US that the fundamental issue behind this action (It cannot be called 'war' because none was declared) was the issue of Human Rights. The US has tried to portray itself as acting under a UN resolution, #1441 among others.
The US is not acting to carry out any UN resolution, however. They are acting out of the United States Presidential Security Directive paper submitted by George Bush in 1991. Every President must submit one to the 'nation'. In George Jr's, he qualified the US right to 'pre-emptive strikes wherever the US sees a threat'.
Really, a Canadian stance on the subject didn't matter, for the US' actions were a foregone conclusion since last year. We must stand with a democracy of nations even if it means taking a stand against a friend who has chosen to 'go it alone' against the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:09:53
There is no such thing as a democracy of nations.
The US did not "go it alone" against the world. There are nations who agree with the US course of action.
Canada did not agree because of our internal politics (Quebec) and our slavish love of an institution which gives enormous power to countries without any burden of accompanied responsibility.
The UN resolutions process is an utter disgrace and its failure to act anywhere is what killed the UN.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-09 00:53:01
Not nations; leaders. Most of people of Britain were against the war.
Canadian people did not support his war because of the lack of proof that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction. The UN was still getting cooperation from Iraq.
Bush and Blair lied about proofs of Iraq's WMD by producing fraudulent documents.
Quebec was not the only province that did not support the invasion of Iraq.
Cretien's reasons for not supporting this invasion are not as clear as I would like; but I am glad he made the decision he did.
Canada does not owe an apology to the Coalition countries;
The coalition countries should be the only countries to fund the rebuilding of Iraq. They caused the destruction; they should pay for their damage.
Canada should pay our share to rebuild Afghanistan.
Alexa McDonough is correct; Canada should take a strong stand and declare our position opposing this action of the coalition countries.
The UN should consider sanctions against the USA / Britain. Perhaps they should only be allowed to import enough oil for homeland use; none for their military.
Israel should be told to disarm or face sanctions.
I am really only venting my anger but something must be done to prevent the USA from attacking any country they wish
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 10:47:31
Fatmomma, You have slowly lost credibility with Barretm82, so what more is there to say... Go ahead, rant on... Sad but true.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-10 23:15:15
No problem Barrett; you haven't made any strong argument for your side that I can see.
My main objection with this invasion was in Bush's rush into this invasion. He could have waited for Saddam to balk. Saddam would have quit cooperating with the inspectors eventually if he had anything to hide. Then the world would have been behind this invasion including Arab/ Muslim countries. It is the backlash against this pre emptive attack with tainted proofs that I believe will bring more hatred to Western countries. The Iraq liberation (if that is the object of this invasion) should have been accomplished by Iraq initiative with a coalition of the willing in a supporting role only.
A hand picked (by America) Iraq government will be looked on as suspect.
I believe a country must be strong enough to lead the fight for its freedom if it is to be strong enough to hold on to that freedom
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 11:19:00
I agree with you, your points are quite valid... The arab countries are actually going to the UN General Assembly - its a bit overdue, but they said they will do it...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Outwest
Date: 2003-04-16 19:39:33
Well, he shouldn't be expelled, that is a bit too facist and a silly idea. But Celluci has no right to say anything to us after the help we gave to the U.S. After Sept 11. Not too mention, did we get on their case for not joining WW! and WW2 right off. Hypocrites all!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 02:48:08
I think personally we should have a wait and see attitude...
Having balanced budgets and a low debt is very important imho... For us (the next generation!)... If only Quebec would do the same :(
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 21:36:08
He is right on the money; I am already feeling the "disappointment" from Americans and I support the removal of Saddam.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-30 23:05:38
Being right on the money is a appropos statement indeed. I think most of the world, including those in Canada, have a much greater fear than Saddam Hussein on their minds. He has become a minute factor in the press and in public opinion. I never really feared Saddam, all these years. Foolish of me. I always worried about selfish things like urban sprawl, water contamination, air pollution and the inexorable march of human development which will inevitably render the earth uninhabitable for the sake of greed.
The removal of Saddam may help the people of Iraq in a small way, but they will be no better off if the US starts pumping the oil money back to Texas. The people of the US will be way better off. Isn't that what the US is saying in this 'war of American interests'?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 23:22:09
..."water contamination, air pollution and the inexorable march of human development which will inevitably render the earth uninhabitable for the sake of greed."...
Well said...
What are you doing about it?
(I don't mean that in a harsh tone, I just wonder how much is your involvement)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-31 18:40:52
No offence taken. While one might easily think that I parrot 'tree-hugging, granola-crunching' diatribe, I also try to live the way I believe. I do not, when I have a choice, buy products that fuel the system of corporate greed. That means I do not watch television (except recently the news channels), do not go to movies or rent movies, or buy products represented by celebrities.
Recently, a baseball player in the US turned down a contract offer for $140 million dollars. It is this ridiculously misrepresentative value system that I do not agree with. Doctors in Canada are becomming a rare commodity because they are less and less in the field for humanity, they are in it for the money. They should go to hollywood and pretend to be doctors, they could easily become millionaires.
My contribution to the direction of society is directly related to whom I shall reward with the expenditure of my dollar. If I eat at a restaurant, it is a local enterprise, not a fast food chain. If I shop for clothes, I try to find that which is not made under conditions of slavery, like JC Penny recently.
I am happy to be in a socialist country such as Canada, where society is valued above the individual. "What serves all thereby serves the one, equally". I pay my taxes, albeit reluctantly, for they serve me as much as my neighbor. However, my only complaint would be: the waste our gov't is guilty of is appalling.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-30 22:50:14
Paul Cellucci's comments were to me not unexpected. I heard a radio call in show where a Canadian businessman stated that 'his commitment to business in the US way outweighed his commitment to Canada'. There are many who feel this way, though not the majority nor Chretien, thank goodness. I believe Mr.Cellucci was in part pandering to those who worship money above all else, to stand up and voice to the world, "The US has a 'smidgeon' of legitimacy and benevolency in their endeavors". From a world-respected nation like Canada, a stand one way or the other is well respected internationally, and the US knows it.
I think the thing that most bothers the US about Canada's choosing different paths is that while we are in many ways, similar' we choose not to think like them. We haven't (yet) put money on the highest pedestal of worship, we don't think like them. We don't believe that the US has proven to be the best example of a country or a government, and we choose not to spread that which we disbelieve in, by force. We wouldn't choose to spread our dogma by force, how can we choose to spread someone else's?
Mr. Cellucci can take his speech and...( hopefully recycle the paper into something useful).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-31 00:00:38
As one who has fellows in the business world, I say, "it is always easy for people to sit on the fence and "do" nothing". (This is not directed at Canada’s policy on Iraq, or you fleabag or anyone in this forum, as you all seem to be an involved type of iindividuals)
To Fleabag, I honestly believe that if we want to change a system, we have to get involved in it. More over we need to get involved in the Iraq situation now that our allies have decided on war. We can meet the Iraq situation somewhat on Canadian terms or have it kick us in the butt, ether way we are going to have to further deal with the consequences of it.
I am not a fan of corporate greed, Enron, Author Anderson, etc. I think that there is a point at which a corporation gets so large that it carries too many negatives and implodes, lets hope large Canadian banks never get to merge.
A concern I have about Canada demeanor on Iraq considering Saddam’s imminent use of chemical weapons, (WMD).
----Also, some here think that Canada is off the hook because we don't publicly support the war in Iraq. That is far from the truth, as I understand it; extremists see Canadian business as fascinators to the United States because we do business with them and provide resources to America which indirectly supports U.S. armed forces.
---Therefore, Canada and our government is a valid target. The only way to appease Iraq and terrorists is to start hanging pictures of Saddam in our living rooms, while reciting Osama Bin Ladin’s version of the Koran.
---I refuse to appease Saddam or Bin Ladin, I support democracies.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-31 18:57:30
I agree, Barretm82, that we should and will get involved eventually. That does not have to mean war, though. It is my contention that Saddam should be brought before the UN on charges of war crimes for the use of chemical weapons. As for the actions of the US and the response from Canada:
When the US was attacked by terrorists Canada sent troops to Afghanistan and did well. The greatest danger we faced was fighting alonside trigger-happy US troops, but our boys were taking the fight to where it belonged. There is a remarkable difference in that action versus the action taken against Iraq.
Iraq was not behind 9/11. If the support of terrorists was an issue, Saudi Arabia should have been the target. The 'regime change' to 'free' the Iraqi people is a different objective altogether, one that should have required the world, Canada, France, Russia, The US all to examine their own adgendas openly, in front of everyone else, in a forum such as the UN.
The US has chosen to take international law into their own hands, so the old statement "You made your own bed, now you must lie in it" has never been more true.
In regards to your last statement, about supporting democracies, I agree, however one thing must be considered above all else: Truth. The US and Canada support regimes that crush democracy and violate human rights on a daily basis, in the interests of profit. China, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Honduras, etc.... When we have them as trading partners, we become enablers to evil.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-01 00:15:58
I just came across this tonight, a quote from the US on Human rights in China:
"As we have said to the Chinese, we have seen some slippage over the past year and it is of concern to us and we have raised it with them on a number of occasions," Powell added, saying the United States had not decided whether to back a resolution against China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Odd, that the US 'has not decided whether to vote' within the institution it has just discarded as 'useless'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-01 15:30:09
..."Odd, that the US 'has not decided whether to vote' within the institution it has just discarded as 'useless'."...
Fleabag, stop and think about what you are saying.
I have been listening to your concerns about injustices and human rights, and finally when the U.S. steps up pressure on China, your comments are not of the benefit this may provide for people in that country but geared to the politics of the U.S. administration.
Fleabag, please ask if we have become too jaded to recognize something positive because of all the difficult Iraq debate?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-02 18:42:02
While I admit that this may be construed as 'Fleabag doesn't think the US can do anything right', I am happy that this issue has been brought to light by the US. The people of China could benefit greatly if the UN, and the US in particular, pursue the matter. My problem lies in the fact that The US puts no stock in the word of the UN, defies it when it (the US) or it's economic allies are called to account, but will pretend 'moral outrage' for some political mileage. There is no question the US needs to bolster it's image in world relations,
for many peoples question it's motives, and with good reason.
To threaten China with a statement like 'We'll consider doing the right thing since it is of no consequence' is hardly a threat at all. I would be far happier if the US and Canada threatened to cut off trade as long as they are 'totalitarian' would go a lot further to help not only the people of China, but people everywhere. For now, I only think they are trying to score PR points by threatening to 'consider' a moral stand, rather than an economic penalty.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 00:58:11
The USA has a lot of gall to show their face at the UN. They don't [ay their dues; they don't abide by a vote ; they want the UN to rubberstamp their ideas ( just as they act towards Canada)
The USA will not enter into UN sponsored treaties such as Kyota or landmines or the ICC. The USA has just admitted using cluster bombs in Iraq.
These do not all explode and can present a danger for years to come.
Yes, maybe we are jaded; I wonder where they get the pomposity to criticize other nations at this time; I believe, it is all propoganda to show they are so conscientious and out to protect the world. I am not buying it
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:29:59
Would you say that Syria and Libya have more or less Gall to show their face at the UN? How about North Korea? More or less?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 19:24:54
Than the USA??? much less; they do not have the power and veto to have a large control on the UN; nor is their over due dues significant. The USA likes to use the UN for its own purposes and ignores it when it doesn't get an agreement with its agenda. Israel should be expelled for ignoring resolutions.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:31:28
I agree with you, the US uses the UN when it suits them, expelling Israel is maybe harsh, no? Maybe a worldwide sanction on exporting weapons to Isreal... Then Israel woulds have no choice but to negociate in good faith!
p.s : This assumes that the US would respect this sanction and would not sell weapons to Israel... Which i truly doubt.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-02 11:37:47
That fact that many Canadians have the view that we should be involved in the post-war reconstruction is a very positive aspect of our foreign policy, however, we must also earn a spot at that table. Our constant little snipes at the Americans is not doing us any good - neither economically (as we should also note that we do have some self-interest in supporting the US) or in terms of giving creditability to any post-war efforts.
It has been suggested that a 'regime change' should have involved more nations. However, several of the nations suggested, stated out right they would veto any US-UK-Spain resolution. No debate. It has been suggested that the US should debate its own agendum (or agenda for plural) out in the open in the UN General Assembly. One could say the same for France, Germany and Russia. Several nations suggested giving the UN inspectors more time. Yet the limited success that Hans Blix received from Iraqi officials came only after the legitimate threat of force by the US/UK coalition.
Thus, if nations like Canada and France were sincere with their effort to provide more time for the inspectors, where were their troops? Why were they not there, ready to enforce the resolutions in the event of non-compliance? That, I think, is the failure of the UN and Canada's current policy. We love to talk and only when popular opinion allows for it, do we consider using military force. Decisions are made in vacuum of politics. Nations abdicate responsibility to the security council, rather then coming to the table with the position of their respective government. In the case of Canada, we have separated the Department of National Defence from DFAIT - not realising that in several cases we need the threat of force to ensure peaceful compliance with the resolutions of the UN, thus weakening our foreign policy.
To several of the other posters here, I leave with this quote from Iraqi poet Awad Nasser, "(a)re [peace protesters] ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" That is is what a lot of the opposition seems to come down to in many circles. It is a trap that we as Canadians should never allow ourselves to fall prey to. It clouds the issues and leads us to making policy that does not stand for something, but rather stands against something.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-02 12:28:27
I agree with most of your assesement, except of course when you say that in this case we should have acted... Canada's position is the right one.
"To several of the other posters here, I leave with this quote from Iraqi poet Awad Nasser, "(a)re [peace protesters] ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?""
I have a problem with superpowers which are not isolationist, the US fits this description perfectly currently (it did not fit this case in the early years of the 20th century). But i have no facts, so we could put this in the 'emotional' category.
I am angered by the illegality of this invasion, and the precedent it creates... Attacking Iraq is illegal, all the jurists have said so (including the UN Jurist Association - whatever that is). So this is a semi-emotional response (its a fact, but my anger is innapropriate).
But more importantly, and this is a fact, the consequences of this will be severe in the middle-east and the world... Just talk to some arab people, and you'll see their reaction, they feel humiliated by Israel, now they are humiliated by the US ... They consider Saddam a martyr ... Seriously, was this war really worth the consequences you described?
What will happen AFTER the war in Iraq will be capital - If the US awards contracts to the US only, puts in charge US people and not Iraqi people - you know as well as me what the consequences will be - Unless you live on another planet...
Currently i know that the UK are trying hard to convince the US government to go through the UN, resolve the palestinian problem and leave Iraqi people control their country - and there is friction between the UK and the US with this... I cannot say what will happen currently. But the consequences will live long after the war is finished...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-02 20:23:32
Codco1, you are entirely correct in your assesment of the (possible) post Saddam Iraq. Hatred of the US(and UK) will grow by leaps and bounds throughout the world if they 'divide the spoils among the victors'. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old outfit, wisely chose not to, at this time, announce their direct involvement in 'rebuilding' Iraq. The implications of one nation 'smashing another' and then using Iraqi money to pay US corporations (especially one that the vice-president has close ties to) to rebuild that which the aggressor demolished, smacks of almost every arrogance and evil imaginable. The consequences, too, are equally hideous.
Perpetual revenge seems to be the 'politic of the day' in almost the entire world. It must end.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 11:52:04
It is completely mis-leading to say there is friction between the UK and the US over:
"the UK are trying hard to convince the US government to go through the UN, resolve the palestinian problem and leave Iraqi people control their country"
This alleges that the friction is over three issues:
1) UN involvement
2) Resolving the Palestinian Problem
3) Leve Iraqi People to cotnrol their country
Actually, the friction is on issue #1. Issues #2 and #3 create no friction as both countries agree in principle, but may disagree on timing.
But, by lumping all three together, we get to perpetuate the notion that the US wants to stay in Iraq as a colonizer and keep Palestine occupied as well. This isn't true and hurts all of us when we perpetuate this train of thought. Harmless here in Canada. Dangerous in the Middle East.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-03 16:52:57
I'm not so sure about issue #2, I don't think the US is pushing hard enough, while the UK seems to be... (And Israel is not at all happy about it...)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-03 21:29:21
You are right, mostly, about point #'s 1&3. The US has stated today that no other nation except the US could or should be the 'rebuilders' of Iraq. Their argument was based mostly on the need of continued military presence (which could be done by the UN, or Canada for that matter) and the HUGE expenditures they have put into the war effort. Simply said, they want the return on their investment.
They do not want to 'reward' any countries that were not suporting their actions. The story of 'The Little Red Hen' comes to mind, but the story takes a hideous twist when it represents a conquering nation dividing up the 'spoils'.
In regards to Palestine, Israel is deeply upset that the US wants to push for a state for palestinians, when G-d himself promised them the lands of Judea, Samaria and Yesha.
I urge you to read, on a semi-regular basis, The Israeli National News, Arutz Sheva and all of the Rabbinical interpretations (these come out once a week under 'Ask The Rabbi') that guide Israel's policies.
It is not as untrue as you may think.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-04 02:55:31
The USA felt no such compunction to hang around and rebuild Afghanistan. The USA has been reluctant to push for control of Israel or to provide any support for Palestine. Their promise of support now appears to be a public relations propaganda boost once they secure a permanent foothold in the middle east by taking contol of Iraq.
Note; the female American POW captured than rescued appears to have been well treated by Iraq and provided with medical care
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 20:13:04
Well 3 is debatable too. They may eventually let Iraqi people control their country but the USA wants to hand pick them, Blair realizes the the UN should be involved. A regime that is hand picked by the USA would be looked on with more distrust. The UN assisting would be more broadly acceptable
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 06:29:33
I certainly hope that Blair will succeed, otherwise i can't even imagine the consequences... I've read that if the US leads the Iraqi government (e.g : Taking care of reconstruction, etc - exluding day to day affairs), they will be violating the Geneva convention!!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 03:44:19
Violating Geneva conventions is not new to this American government. The prisoners being held in Guatanamo bay are not being given any rights.
Bush screamed for American POW 's being shown on TV in violation of the Geneva convention but I have seen many Iraqi prisoners being paraded in front of the cameras before and after. About 2 days ago, there were closeups of many Iraqi POWs with bags over their heads and a closeup to show how scared and shaking they were.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:35:11
I know, seeing pictures of POW's in humiliating positions is revolting ... This goes for all sides. When i saw pictures of POW's on the Globe And Mail web site, i was shocked... and it was in VERY humiliating positions - they should at least blur the faces of the people so they can't be identified ... Same is true for the dispicable interviews of American POW's by Iraq (they stopped fast after that...)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-10 23:24:22
I saw more pictures of Iraqi prisoners clad in only undershorts, face down on the ground; one face completely close up and a pair of legs in an unatural position in front of the picture . I believe it was in todays Vancouver Sun. April 10.
Does still pictures make it right?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-02 19:21:43
I think your post was very lucid and meaningful, yet I believe there is even more that could be done, especially in the UN.
Firstly, the UN should have it's own militia, comprised of and having access to, all member nation's forces, (and Canada does that now) thereby giving the UN the 'force' to back up it's resolutions.
Secondly, the 'veto' system should be abolished. Many countries use it when the UN resolutions are contrary to the specific nation's interests.
With regard to your last paragraph, I agree that Canada should 'be leading' rather than resisting, however we did not take the position we did just to 'gainsay' the US. Now, more than ever, an impartial 'world police force' is needed, and the UN is about the only one in existence today. The Red Cross et al are not political, nor should they be. The US is one of the last countries I would trust to act 'impartially' given their vehement nationalistic subservience to Mammon and their dogma of 'ethical relativism'. (Mind you, Israel and Islamic nations adhere just as strictly to this).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-03 10:41:02
Fleabag,
I must say that despite your references to Milton (which I must admit that when I hear of Paradise Lost, I think of what America stands for and what it currently is - which could also be applied to the UN), I do disagree with your assessment that the United Nations must be the body of a global new order. Looking at the recent history of the UN, I will say my faith in that organisation has wavered.
First, we fail to see any action taken during the Kosovo conflict. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find anyone that claimed it was an illegal action by NATO. We can also look at the conference on racism held at Durban, South Africa as an example where some nations and special interest groups high-jacked the agenda. With Libya now the Chair of the Human Rights Commission, I must question some of the recent decisions of the UN.
However, even the militia that you proposed has some flaws. Looking at the nations of the UN, the only powers with enough military hardware as well as capital, tend to be the western powers, China and Russia. An international police force would thus use these resources, but be controlled all nations. That places an unfair burden on the larger powers of the UN, and leads to the question as to why they would be willing to become part of that type of system.
I do agree the veto system needs some revisiting, but I would not expect the larger powers to sign over sovereignty to the UN. The veto protects their own national self-interest. How one can over come this particular question is a challenge, for I cannot see any western style democracy turning over its ability to make decisions to an un-elected body - even looking at Canada, what would we have to gain by doing so? Likewsie, we cannot simple go back to the old international congress idea that was used at the end of the Napoleonic wars. The solution must be in the middle. Coalitions of the willing maybe an avenue worth looking at in more depth.
Finally I disagree that we need 'impartial world police force'. What is a ideal is an international coalition that is willing to stand up for what is right, which means they must be partial to some sort of world system. As I stated above in the Thoreau quote, of which I left out the first line - Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something. That should be the foundation of Canadian foreign policy. If the UN fails to stand for something, then we cannot simply stand for the UN, but rather, we must stand with and for its ideals. These ideals are reflected in the founding principles of America. As such, we should stand with and for America can and should be.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-07 23:09:37
Dear RCGGILLIS:
I concur with Paragraph 1, with the note: The 'hijacking' of the Human rights commission was indeed a tragedy. The chance to discuss important issues were lost to fanaticism. Partly, though, the blame must also be placed on the US and Israel because of their stance on 'ethical relativism'.
I do agree that my proposal for a 'worldwide militia' is simplistic, only though, because it was a theoretical suggestion. Much more thought would have to be given, but in principle, I think it would be a good idea to visit.
The veto concept in the UN must also be re-visited, because 'ethical relativism' dictates the vote and/or veto.
Lastly, the paragraph about morality... It would need to be assumed that the highest morality has or would be achieved if one is to aim above it. I don't think we've come that far as a species yet. 'Standing up for what is right with a coalition of the willing' is directly dependent on what one believes and is therefore subjective. If, for example, a democratic vote was taken throughout the world about whether 'ethical relativism' or the right of soveriegn nations to use, say, religion, as a basis of national law, you would lose. Religion is far more widespread that the notion of democracy. What is right, for now, and forever, must include the basic rights to existence, for all, and that notion is far simpler than many believe. Ethical relativism must be replaced by what is right for all, not the few.
I agree that the 'foundation of the US constitution' is what they, and we, could stand for. However, Equality, Freedom, and Justice for all has been usurped by Profit, Greed, and Ethical Relativism for the powerful.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:40:07
I entirely agree with you... But
personal interest is still the top priority for everyone... Maybe one day countries will be ready for a change, and take the fate of the whole world into account. I do have strong hope....
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 23:01:37
It may be your opinion that Hans Blix was only getting limited success. I disagree with your analysis. Iraq was cooperating and destroying missles even though the USA continued to claim it was not enough; I would have strong resistance to destroying my gun if someone had a gun aimed at me and said even if I throw away my weapon they would still kill me. There was no immediate threat from Iraq; There was no reason to attack as long as the weapon inspectors were getting sufficient cooperation from Iraq. The USA claims of Iraq having or planning on use WMD were not proven. The USA lost a lot of credibility by producing fraudulent proofs of Iraq"'s possession of any such weapons.
In my opinion; it was irresponsible to attack a country under these conditions. To date, we have seen no evidence that Iraq has any such weapons.
The USA has admitted to using cluster bombs. While not yet banned, there is
a movement to ban these . Cluster bombs leave small bombs that often do not detonate and can be undetected for years. Then be accidently detonated
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:34:07
..."I would have strong resistance to destroying my gun if someone had a gun aimed at me and said even if I throw away my weapon they would still kill me."...
Well if you were the Waco neighbor threaten people with that gun and the police gave you 12 years and you still didn't disarm, then I would support the police swat team taking you out.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-31 23:49:09
some democracies are democracies is name only. A good democracy does not try to prevent free speech or free choice. Is zimbabwe a democracy?
There was and is no evidence that Saddam was going to use any chemical weapons or that he even possesses any.
But I have seen reports that the USA used napalm bombs in this war; napalm is a banned weapon. An embedded reporter claimed US forces used napalm(banned since 1980) in taking Safwan Hill near Basra. (Business Week Online
Canada may not escape terrorist attacks; mainly because of this attack.
But Canada is known world wide for being more moderate and fair. Some universities in the USA are advising their students who go overseas to tell everyone that they are Canadian.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-31 10:17:28
I am happy that he spoke plainly and truthfully about US reaction to our lack of support.
I think he will rally Canadians who think our government has perverted our principles.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-31 19:03:48
It is the principles of equality and justice that are being perverted by both Saddam and US corporate greed. Saddam serves power, Bush serves Mammon. I would wish to have neither at the wheel of "Spaceship Earth".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 13:58:53
Bush is here for 4 to 8 years. So, he won't be at the wheel of Spaceship Earth for all that long... Meanwhile, Scottie has been begging the helm to send down some mechanics to help him un-clog the UN warp drive which, pardon the pun, is seriously warped.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-31 14:30:46
I also should have posted this link to the text of the speech -oops
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/documents/cellucci030325.html
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-04 19:59:31
Here's the best response I've seen yet. Fromm the Halifax Herald.
Sunday, March 30, 2003 The Halifax Herald Limited
Dear Mr. Cellucci:
Remember WWII?
Canada has always been there whenever the U.S. truly needed us. But when we went to war twice in the last century, America hesitated. So don't lecture us about freedom, democracy and friendship.
By Silver Donald Cameron
To:
Ambassador Paul Cellucci, Embassy of the United States of America, 490 Sussex Dr.,
Ottawa, Ont.
DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:
Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive. Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S. pressure and Canadian opinion - a familiar position for Canadian prime ministers - and he will not tell you to go pound sand. But someone should.
Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq.
"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family."
Codswallop. And that's being diplomatic.
The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United States. A monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestor for repelling an invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The very first instance of military co-operation among the 13 colonies occurred in 1745 under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor as governor of Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and captured the Fortress of Louisbourg.
Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your privateers sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The birth of Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border.
Do you remember manifest destiny, the 1840s U.S. doctrine which held that your country had a God-given mission to rule all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the slogan that rallied Americans to threaten an invasion in 1902 over the Alaska boundary? Yours is the only country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened.
And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in 1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A million Canadians fought in the Second World War, and 45,000 died. We need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and democracy.
Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as close as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians - I am one - have family members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991.
And when great catastrophe strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each other.
As governor of Massachusetts, you must have been present at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston each year - an annual gift from Nova Scotia to commemorate the immediate and massive assistance of Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917.
Our chance to reciprocate came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Canadian communities took in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S. planes forced down by the terrorist attacks.
Halifax alone hosted 7,200. We housed them in our homes and schools and churches, fed them and comforted them and treated them as family. We probably gave more immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country. Yet when your president later thanked nations for their help, he did not mention Canada.
The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a deliberate choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years - an astounding diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening.
A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is a sideshow, a grudge match, a distraction. It will breed more martyrs, and more terrorists.
Back in Massachusetts, in 1846, a young man was arrested and jailed for refusing to pay taxes, to avoid supporting his government's deplorable policies.
He explained this in an essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, which has ever since inspired people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. His name was Henry David Thoreau, and no doubt the governor of Massachusetts thought he was a pretty poor American. He was not; like King, he was a voice for what is finest in American life and values. And the issue on which he took his stand may sound a bit familiar. He was opposed to an imperial war - the unprovoked U.S. invasion which stripped Mexico of 40 per cent of its territory.
Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies.
That is the message you should take back to the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will understand it.
Sincerely,
Silver Donald Cameron
Award-winning author Silver Donald Cameron lives in D'Escousse.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-04-06 15:14:20
Banquo
I think Simpson puts it very well
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030405.ibsimp0405/BNStory/International/
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 06:30:45
I also read his editorial, he fully reflected my view and beliefs! I was impressed!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-06 15:27:19
This requires a bit of a history lesson. I will try and be short though.
==================
In 1690 the British colonies of New England attacked the French in what s now modern day Canada. Mr. Cameron should realise that this is not Canadians versus Americans.
1745 The British invaded what is now Nova Scotia, but was under French rule as Acadia. Mind you I think the part of about the French invading British controlled Canso in 1744 out of the story.
From 1803-1812 British privateers seized over 10,000 American ships that had the nerve to trade with the French, contrary to a British embargo. That said, Mr. Madison did declare war on us in 1812 - of course we were British at the time.
1840s and Canada's support of the British Empire - not to mention Social Darwinism - is pretty much akin to Manifest Destiny
WWI - Canada did not decide to go to war, it had to. Mr. Cameron needs to brush up on the Statue of Westminster.
WWII - we may want to note the American industrial machine that let us keep up the fight. Without the US support in that respect, the war was over. A lot of Americans died as well. I think we owe them a great deal for the Pacific war. A European-centric view of WWII often leaves out the most bloody part of the war.
==================
Mr. Cameron's views are quite well know in Nova Scotia, but his views reflect an emotional argument combined with mis-information and partial historical facts taken out of context. His response offers no solution to Canada's lack of direction.
I will re-iterate. Mr. Cellucci did his job. He stressed to us (as his counterparts in other nations did) the US's 'disappointment'. If all we can offer in response is this style of argument, then I am indeed embarrassed to to be a Canadian. I could respect my government and my nation if given a valid reason to oppose this war. Historical half-truths and the much-vaunted seal of approval of the UN, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of moral fortitude.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 20:19:01
How about : it is a war crime to invade another country that has not invaded or threatened any other country in 12 years. Do we join the USA in invading every country in the world that has an oppressive government. Why Are the Americans subsidizing the Turkish government that oppresses its Kurdish people? Why does the USA not concentrate on the war against terrorism which we are still supporting. Remember Osama Bin Laden. The War in Iraq appears a little too convenient timed to settle OLD issues. Why did the "coalition resort to producing fraudulent claims of proof of Iraq's possession of WMD?
Canada and Canadians decide which wars we support;
There was no viable threat to the USA; or they would have recieved our support.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-07 12:26:47
fatmomma,
Are you suggesting that Canada (and the West in general) take a more isolationists view of the world? that unless something directly effects our own self-interest that we should stay out? If Saddam was isolated, that would ensure our own safety, but would we not be condemning the people if Iraqi to a life of semi-hell? In 1988 we saw Saddam order the slaughter of over 100,000 Kurds. In 1991, after the Gulf War ended, Saddam had the rebels in the North and the South killed. In 1996 we saw his two son-in-laws killed by his own orders. We now have evidence of mass murders at a warehouse complex outside Basra. The government of Saddam can definitely not been see as the most human rights friendly regime. Yet you are right, there has yet to be a proven link to terrorist activities that would directly threaten the security of the West. So it pure self-interest the only motivation you see for Canada's foreign policy?
You suggest the war is illegal because Saddam has not violated the borders of another nation in 12 years. Yet what about the humanitarian reasons that the UN itself says can be used for the justification of conflict? I have cited two clear examples of human rights violations of above and evidence of a third. Do these not count towards making the case of humanitarian intervention?
You suggest that the US did not make the case that there were WMD in Iraq. Yet why did Russia, France and Germany suggest that the UN inspectors were making progress in the disarmament of Iraq and that they required more time to finish the job? Hans Blix himself felt they were making progress, so would it not follow that these nations as well as the head of the inspection team felt there were indeed some grounds to continue the search for WMD? The US claims thus can hardly be considered or seen to be fraudulent in this light.
I think we as a nation can decide what conflicts to support and the removing a police state regime such as Saddam's is one conflict we should be supporting. Mr. Cellucci is correct in telling us that his nation is disappointed that Canada is not doing so.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:49:56
"Are you suggesting that Canada (and the West in general) take a more isolationists view of the world? "
Superpowers should do so... yes, because most people of the world eye with suspicion anything that those superpowers do...
I'm mostly repeating myself (I've written about this already)... Why didn't any of the western powers at least stop delivering weapons to Saddam's regime in 1988?? just stopping exporting weapons could still be considered isolationism, since its not affecting anything outside their own countries.
Canada promotes intervention in the case of Genocide - "International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty" http://web.gc.cuny.edu/icissresearch/main.htm - when this Genocide occurs, and falls under the Commission's report, recent events in Iraq could not justify invading Iraq... On the other hand, we could have intervened in Rwanda at the time of the genocide...
p.s : I really did not know that they were 100 000 kurds which were killed by the regime? Can you give me a non-biased hyperlink? Were these civilians, military? Can you give me the political context? Was it a civil war?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-08 16:10:19
Regarding the URL request, it is hard not to find a non-biased link. For example, www.jewishagency-ed.org/actual/iraq/4.html, says between 100,000 and 300,000 deaths. Globalsecurity.org states that between 50,000-100,000 Kurds were killed between February and September 1988 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/1corps.htm).
The White House gives the same number as Globalsecurity. This leaves out the numbers that fled into Turkey or 'disappeared' as some sources claim.
I found that when Professor Ramesh Thakur gave a lecture in Waterloo on the International Commission on State Sovereignty (he was a member of that group and also a Vice rector at the United Nations University), entitle, the Responsibility to Protect, that he provided more flexibility then you.
For the actual report, see http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/menu-en.asp. It also has the background research.
Here is part of the report
4.19 In the Commission's view, military intervention for human protection purposes is justified in two broad sets of circumstances, namely in order to halt or avert:
1. large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocide intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or
2.large scale "ethnic cleansing," actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.
One such quote that I recall was "by not taking action, we are more complicit than those who committed the actions themselves." Referring to the genocide of the Tutsi's in 1994. Prof. Thakur reminded several of us in the room that we we must remember that political decisions are still going to be made and thus a "double standard is unavoidable" - as noted by the UN (and Canada's) reaction to Somalia, Rwanda, and Kosovo.
While I am sure he would have supported the UN in this matter, I feel that some of the arguments do carry over. When we see the slow death of the Iraqi people due to the actions of the government, when we see the Kurds in the north living under the threat of their own government, when Saddam has proven he is willing to use WMD against his own people, when we see that the borders of neighbours will be violated given the chance, I am not sure how much longer we as a nation should let one person push the us to the very edge of what is acceptable international behaviour.
With a commitment to rebuild a shattered nation (I wish the Afghani people had the same level of public support as the Iraqi people), I think this war can be justified. Even though several of the people in the academic world that have given me several of my arguments I know would disagree me.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 17:05:29
Thanks for the link, i only checked the first one, and compared with other articles... In all cases, the Kurds have been exploited by everyone since the beginning - its very sad.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/irak/chrono-kurde
The numbers of deaths 50 000-100 000 deaths, seem from all the sources more to come exactly from the 1988 era, where there were opposing factions (UPK, PDK and Iraq)... The issue seems complex, and this article convinced me that you are right :
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1998/03/NEZAN/10174
A reason more why strong condemnation should have been done at that time, I'm sure that if there would have been a strong condamnation at that time, Saddam's regime would have stopped ...
But i have the same vision as the academics, you simply can't say 15 years later, that now justice will be done...
The definition of "large scale loss of life, actual or apprehend" is quite vague ...
Thanks again for the info!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-07 03:45:09
how about the flagrant fraudulent reports of proof of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction
What about The USA trying to find votes to support them in a second resolution where they did not present a valid presentation ; they chose to use bribery or threats of economic repercussions.
Where are all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that so greatly threatened the USA.
The USA is lacking in morals in this attack; nor Canada in refusing to participate in this massacre.
No doubt, the Americans will be seeking monetary assistance from UN countries to rebuild that which they destroyed.
We have already had to send taxpayer's money for humanitarian aid due to the American actions.
Valid reason for not supporting this war: It is illegal; threat to USA unfounded. Threats of terrorist attacks to North America will be much greater thanks to the anger and fear spread by this unwise, unjust invasion.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 15:52:39
Yes, that is a good dilemma we have there, pay for the bills to help the people of Iraq or stand aside and let the US pay. If we think logically, we shouldn't pay a penny (its an illegal act after all), but we also have to think with our hearts a bit, and pay part of the bill even it would not be correct to do that...
Very interesting dilemma indeed...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 06:34:39
"could respect my government and my nation if given a valid reason to oppose this war. "
You should read more editorials of the arab world, and you'll get all the reasons you want... I think the Canadian government understood the instability it would cause.
You know that Canada is quite keen on the 'rule of law' motto (there is a great proportion of ministers, MP's, PM's which are / were lawyers - a bit too much in my eyes, but thats another story), so why would they change this motto all of a sudden??
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-07 13:57:14
codc01,
I think many people in the western world should read more Arab editorials/news and then may be we would se that calling for the destruction of the US is not something new. The conflict between Israel and its neighbours has very much often placed the US on the wrong side of the Arab leadership. Funny things is, Israel, which probably understand the Arab mentality much better then most nations on Earth, supports the war, and that nation has lived with the repercussions of religious based violence a lot longer then most.
Several members of the Bush administration are also lawyers.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 15:50:02
You're trying to tell me that the pro-US Arab regimes permitted, before this war, for the call to the destruction of the US in editorials? I don't think so ... The thing which is now different than before, is that all muslims of the world (except maybe members of the Iraqi opposition and the liberated Iraqis) have the same view... I don't think they all had the same view on the US before this war...
(I'm talking about people on the street here, not about the government views...)
As i will repeat once again, the anger can either recede or boil, it will all depend on what the US administration does after this war... Wait and see is my attitude.
Several of the US administration people are lawyers also? :( We live in lawyer land!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-07 18:18:20
The US funds and supports anti-western muslim extremists when it suits their purpose. For example, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Osama Bin Laden, also. Their views were well known, their hatred of the US was no barrier to recieving US military aid. The US was looking after it's own interests, and 'in the interests of National Security' there is no such thing as morality, only action and consequence. Yet the US seems to refuse to believe that there is a link between the two.
Tibet was invaded and annexed by China, yet there was nothing worth to gain for the US from Tibet so no action was taken.
Democracy was crushed in China, but this was in the interests of the US economy, so the action taken was the lifting of sanctions and the cancellation of visa extensions for chinese students to reward China for squashing the 'uppity' slaves to the US economy.
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
