|
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
|
Show in topic
|
|
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
|
|
