Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Conclusion: The World We Want

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

Perhaps the World we don't want

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

Show in topic

Perhaps the World we don't want

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

Perhaps the World we don't want

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

Perhaps the World we don't want

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

Perhaps the World we don't want

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

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic