|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 21:22:20
..."It has been revealed by Richard Haass, policy-planning chief at the US State Department that this war has been in the works since July 2002"...
banquosghost, Just to clear up one point, the planning for Saddam’s removal did not start with Bush Jr. in 2002, it started with Clinton in 1998 when weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Regime change was already a goal of U.S. policy at that point; Bush is merely continuing that policy and 9/11 has become an incentive not to procrastinate on Saddam's removal.
Some here are blaming Bush for not connecting the dots on 9/11, well the dots are again assembling for Saddam and the U.S. is not going to let them connect this time.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-31 10:27:41
No. The US/WK moves at the UN are ethically vacant because the UN is an ethically vacant forum.
Tony Blair is not in the danger you think, Banquo.
Right now, the pro-Saddam lobby in Canada feels triumphant because they have kept Canada out of this war - but this won't last.
Our government's soundbites played so well on Iraqi TV that there is no doubt why Iraqi resistance is so strong: "Even Canada, the Great SAtan's neighbour hates the American bastards..."
Canada has attached itself to a model of the world that was false the minute it was built. When the UN applied sanctions to Iraq - the US bore the brunt of the blame. UN authorization would not have mollified the legion who hate US power. The US is in a lose-lose situation.
Canada assisted in creating this lose-lose situation and as such, assisted the propaganda war of Saddam.
We should have kept up with "containment"? Well, only 2 countries were actually doing the containing. Meanwhile, our new allies, France and Russia sell arms to Iraq to help the regime shoot its people down.
(What are the chances that two errant US missles happen to both hit markets? Pretty slim.)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 13:18:02
"Tony Blair is not in the danger you think, Banquo. "
It depends on how the US will rebuild Iraq,if the US goes at it alone or if they don't reveal the quartet's palestinian-israel peace plan... Tony Blair will be in danger, several British analysts have said so, and i'm pretty sure they are right.
I won't comment the rest of your post since its an emotional response! :) But i also have emotional responses sometimes!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-31 20:00:03
"Right now, the pro-Saddam lobby in Canada feels triumphant because they have kept Canada out of this war - but this won't last."
Pro-Saddam lobby, huh?
Up until now I hadn't thought you were being either deliberately obtuse or deliberately inflammatory but I've changed my mind. With the inclusion of that phrase I think you're being both.
However, if the world appears to you to be as simple mindedly black and white as your use of that phrase would indicate then I'll respond to you no more.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-01 11:51:29
I am a simple minded person, I admit that. My response is emotional, this I'll admit to as well. I am deliberately inflammatory. And I don't feel that you need answer me.
Here's black and white simplicity for you:
Before 9/11, the Bush administration walked out of Kyoto and developped their "continental" energy plan. the aim of the plan was, in their words, "to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies". The senate, only in the past month, voted down the proposal to drill in ANWAR.
Canadians decried the US unilateral withdrawel from Kyoto and the ANWAR plan. There was a lot of merit in our position.
But now, we say they are only in Iraq to control to make sure oil gets quoted in US dollars.
No matter what the US does, they will be accused of the most vile motives.
Even if our accusations have to contradict the accusations we were making a year and a half ago.
I find it simple-minded to decide, before the fact, that you dislike an administration and therefore, you will accuse them of any crimes you can dream up - regardless of whether those accusations contradict last week's accusations.
Please recall, this issue is very divisive. As Pollara indicated, not since free-trade has Canada been so divided.
People who disagree with your positions are as passionate about what they believe as you are. It is unfair to attack them with oil conspiracies and other hidden agendas instead of debating the issues they present to you.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-01 21:07:15
"We" say this and "we" say that.
Virtually all of the links to stories relevant to these issues that I've posted have been links to US publications. The rest have been British. OK,one was I think a translation of a piece from Der Spiegel.
US citizens and US writers are saying these things themselves. *They're* scared of the New American Century Project implications. *They're* positing a link with oil and Euro-dollars. *They're* accusing their government of motives more vile than I could dream up. I don't disagree with them obviously but I didn't create the allegations or accusations. US citizens did. So trying to condemn me or condemn Canadians who agree with them is empty. Maybe you disagree with those US citizens and writers. Fine.
Elsewhere on this board I have repeatedly said that I would like to see Saddam gone even dead. I've also said I would rather see a more controlled and deliberate ground military operation with limited and local air support. I've said I had serious problems with the connections the Bush administration has tried to draw between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush himself has said there isn't one yet still over 50% of US citizens polled seem to think there is. I've said I have serious problems with the US presentations to the world community on why they felt this had to be done now and done this way. Without deflecting the conversation into why you have no faith in the UN can you tell me why you think repeated mistruths and distortions are legitimate grounds for a war? It makes no difference to me where the mistruths and distortions took place. Does it make a difference to you?
Are you familiar with the name John O'Neill? For six years he was the head of the FBI's counter-terrorism unit that was looking into Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In 2001 he quit the FBI in complete frustration with the Bush administrations foot dragging and obstructionism. He took a job as Head of Security at the World Trade Center. His first day at his new job was Sept.11, 2001. Here. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5513/
Which fact do you refer to when you say I decided I didn't like this administration "before the fact"? The fact of the war? The fact of the repudiation of all multi-lateral treaties? The fact of the Supreme Court's awarding the Presidency to them? I don't like the Bush administration because of the way they're underfunding and undercutting the security of their cities. I don't like the Bush administration because of their education policies or lack thereof. I don't like the Bush administration for more reasons than this board will have room for me to list. Why do you like them?
And ANWAR isn't gone by the way.http://www.msnbc.com/news/884132.asp?0dm=C24DN&cp1=1
<Have I mentioned how much I hate it when the board times out when you try to write something long? :-)>
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-02 02:35:28
I agree with banquosghost; my sources that most unnerve me; have come from the USA. Ramsey Clark was assistant attorney general for Kennedy and attorney general for Johnston. Many try to discredit him but his claims and ideas are backed up by others and by the way this war is proceeding. The USA will not pay their dues to the UN; they opt out of the banning of land mines, the Kyota accord and the International Criminal Court. There is several reports from various sources that claim they have used banned chemical weapons. I will use Bush's words and say to him on these UN programs he will not join: mr Bush if you are not with us you are against us.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 13:43:34
That your most disturbing sources come from the USA should be a source of comfort. It reminds us of what kind of country the USA is.
Regime change in the USA? That can be done every four years and is certainly done every 8 years.
Free Press in the USA? I think you are arguing that point eloquently.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 01:35:28
I resent you refering to those of us who do not support this war as being pro Saddam. You have not heard one person on this forum supporting Saddam. The people being attacked are not Saddam; this war is against a nation not one man. Do not be so insulting. The USA coalition were the minority to see Iraq as a threat; Iraq has not attacked any nation in the last 12 years. There was no proof of any illegal weapon in Iraq. Canada has not assisted Saddam propaganda; but you are falling for American propaganda. You can believe as you wish but don't put words or motives in our words that are not there
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 11:40:10
Our leaders have made statements that played very well on Iraqi TV. When Saddam wants to make the argument that the US/UK intentions are to conquer and control Iraq's oil, he played snippets, among others, of Canadian government officials admitting their "hatred" for Americans, etc.
"There was no proof of any illegal weapon in Iraq".
Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I think you'll regret saying that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-03 16:58:08
So?? Iraq uses any propaganda weapon at his disposal, what is the problem with that? Are you trying to say, that everyone should agree with a country (in this case the US), so as not to provide any propaganda wapon to any opposed country (in this case Iraq)?
Wow! What a bland world that would be, everyone always saying the same thing!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 23:27:43
Oh, I believe they will "find" these weapons. Will I feel guilty if Iraq uses them? No. The weapons inspectors were just getting on the issues of chemical weapon; Those of us who oppose this war do so because we wanted the weapons inspectors to continue to hunt for any weapons peacefully until that option was no longer viable. That time had not come. We wanted to work peacefully not send out young Americans to become possible victims if the USA's position was correct. We do not believe in condoning mass casualties on either side when there was no urgent need to do so.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:19:36
Fatmomma says..."Oh, I believe they will "find" these weapons. Will I feel guilty if Iraq uses them? No."....
I just wanted to highlight that statement of yours; In the event someone may have missed it.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 17:17:15
Barret; I think everyone could read between the lines; that these "finds" while they are probably forthcoming may not be completely honest. That the USA will cover its backside. Nearly any household has the ingredients to make a mustard gas. That any such find done by the USA coalition may be suspect.
Why should I feel guilty? You took that out of context. As I said; the UN was progressing to verifying whether Iraq had any such weapons, but was prevented to complete the investigation by the UN. Would I regret the loss of lives or possible ongoing health problems? Yes. Will the coalition regret all the senseless loss of lives if an independent investigation shows no such evidence of chemical weapons or for endangering their military by not allowing inspectors to turn up such weapons.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-05 17:57:38
Didn't we not already debate this issue? I would entirely understand Saddam if he used WMD's at this time, even though i would not agree with him. I think Fatmomma is saying the same thing (I hope?)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 21:07:36
nor quite; I said they would probably find them if the Americans had to place them or by exaggerating existence of chemicals found as any household has the ingredients for mustard gas (similar) and my lack of guilt. But we are on same wave length. Barret was taking my words out of context purposely
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 23:14:06
..."Why should I feel guilty? You took that out of context.
Barret was taking my words out of context purposely."...
(Yes & No), what I was getting at, "If we could do something (anything) to stop the use of Chemical weapons, and we did nothing, should we feel "bad", "Guilty" for not doing anything? When we could have taken actions to save lives?"
I'm not being harsh on you; it is just food for thought.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 03:05:11
But the UN inspectors were trying to do just that and were still looking at Iraqi documentation. That was my reason. Will Bush and Blair feel guilty if they find nothing; I doubt it
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:22:10
They shouldn't feel guilty. They did the right thing.
Iraqi documentation - I have a question - did that documentation get prepared by the Ministry of Information?
If so, I think I know what I'd use that documentation for....
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 23:04:23
The documentation of the Americans was proven fraudulent several times. There is obviously no great store of WMD in Iraq. You like to ignore the obvious.
There was No valid reason for invading a disarming country. The Americans are using WMD on civillian targets. They even attacked the Palestinian Hotel that houses journalists with a tank because they THOUGHT there were snipers there. Probably saw glint of binoculars
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
