|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion: The World We WantThank 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. |
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-02 08:53:22
The other question I have, "all this could be avoided if Saddam just left the country for awhile". The collation would investigate and all the Iraqi people would gladly elect Saddam back as president according to some here.
Note;------Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud, said Saddam should make a sacrifice for Iraq and step down if it would end the war. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan responded with a rebuke: “Go to hell. ... You are too much of a nothing to say a word addressed to a leader of Iraq.”
----This is the type of response received from your man Saddam Hussein, banquosghost-----
Why doesn’t Saddam sacrifice for the lives of all the Innocent Iraqi people…. All Saddam has to do is leave the country for awhile? Even the most determined political leader in our countries would resign to save the lives of their countrymen. Why not Saddam?
If Saddam was to leave Iraq for 2 years, don’t you think Banquosghost that his departure would be worth the lives of thousands of Iraqi people?
IF Saddam left we could get the Red Cross in immediately and other human rights organizations into Iraq and stop this war!!!!
Do it now Banquo, tell Saddam to LEAVE and save the Iraqi people, for once in his life he has the chance to do something civilized.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-04-02 17:33:04
----This is the type of response received from your man Saddam Hussein, banquosghost-----
C'mon, absolutely nothing Banquo has said here or elsewhere in this dialogue suggest's a "pro-Saddam" positon, as you implicitly refer. One thing I think many don't realize is that those who were adamantly opposed to Saddam in Iraq were eliminated by him, or fled the country. Those that remain have probably learned to 'work around him', and would probably find the prospect of living the rest of their lives under Saddam's rule considerably more appealing than the prospect of having "the mother of all bombs", as the pentagon likes to refer to their latest bunker busting toy, dropped on their heads. Myself, I would certainly choose the former as opposed to the latter.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-02 21:00:45
I'm getting fed up with being told my reponse is too long or finding that the board has timed out while I write.
He's not my Saddam.
This is foolish now.
Read this. Another State Department resignation. I agree with her. I guess that makes she and I both Saddam lovers.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/032103wright.htm
Would you rather I stopped posting?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-03 10:29:53
Banquo asks, “Would you rather I stopped posting?”
“Please don’t do that Banquo”.
My relatives in WWII gave their lives so we could comfortably & safely express our opinions from our computers. I honor that and to shun you would be to disrespect what they bled for.
Today good people die around the world in struggle for those rights availed to you and I. I comprehend revulsion about war; Banquo may possibly have friends and relatives living in Iraq. He sees the sickening images of death on T.V. This is not lost on me.
I don’t have relatives living Iraq, but I did have friends and relatives living during the World War II and the Cold War in the Soviet Union, parts of my family tree don’t exist anymore because of communist regimes. The current images of murder chambers of Saddam’s régime and accounts of survivors hit home to my elderly relatives. Banquo and Jwit, I know that the two of you recognize that just because we don’t see daily images of Saddam’s regime brutality on T.V., doesn’t mean it has not been happening for the last 25+ years.
I’m going to be difficult to you banquo, not because I don’t understand where you are coming from, but because I do.
When people talk about those that will die, what about the ones that have already died and the one's that will be killed by their own government in ways we can't imagine any human being put through by another human. We live in a country where we can say what we feel and not worry about being killed by it. The people that died during WWI & WWII to ensure that we have that right -- is it not true that in 2003 we must continue to fight with those without (representative) democracy when necessary?
I have spent too much time on this website; I’ll get back to it in awhile or so when I have less work going on.
Bye for now.
Steve
Peace.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 00:46:23
My reletives fought in world war !! to stop a country from invading country ag=fter country: Not for democracy otherwise we would not have had Communist Russia as a participant on our side. It was to stop wars; not to start them. The only way to stop Saddam from committing atrocities on his own people is for the Iraqi people to overthrow him.(Assistance could be offered if asked for.) This is the only way that Iraq can become a strong independent country. An outside attack can only damage and destroy this country; any government formed will be
controlled by distrusted foreigners (USA) or governed by another corrupt government. The chances for a smooth changeover to democracy is very remote
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-05 05:06:15
I absolutely agree with you!! You have exactly the same opinion as me, overthrowing a government is the work of the people of that country, not of foreigners, of course other countries can help secretly of course...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:44:05
Fatmomma Says, "The only way to stop Saddam from committing atrocities on his own people is for the Iraqi people to overthrow him.(Assistance could be offered if asked for.)"
The Kurd freedom fighters have asked and are now receiving help, I guess you support the war now?
As for WWII, people fought for freedom with/for their friends/family.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 17:22:35
What the USA coalition is giving is NOT help; it is control. The Kurds are not playing a large role; they are bit players and do not present a broad representation of Iraq.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 16:23:40
The Kurdish people are not a representation of the Iraqi people. They are non Arabic; represent approx 19% of Iraqi peopl. May 1988, many large and powerful Kurdish tribes and prominent Kurdish families (non tribal) supported the Central Iraq government.
The Kurdish people of Turkey are being attacked by that country. Turkey is still recieving money from America,
Interesting article on CBC News the other day; "Turkey's Kurds"
Supporting the Kurdish minority in this case would be like France sending troops to liberate Canada at Quebec's request.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-07 20:50:10
What can I say; you are comparing Saddam's Iraq to Canada???
I am not going to continue to debate you on ridiculous claims like that, it doesn't justify a response.
In time we will see how the people of Iraq fare.
"Yes, you can even have the last word. lol..."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-07 23:15:03
I made no claims just saying that you cannot hand over control of a country to a minority and expect it to work.
That we wouldn't like or accept being controlled by a distinct minority and neither would the Iraq's.
How is that comparing Canada to Iraq; stop putting a completely different slant on what I say.
People all over the world react much the same. Just made the comparison because Canadians are aware how badly that would be rejected. It would have to be a government that can represent all culture and races of the country
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:24:47
1) Iraq's regime is a minority (Sunni). And you, fatmomma, wanted to see the regime survive. so, if the country cannot work with a minority running it, why do you think Saddam's Iraq was working?
2) Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien all hail from Quebec. Canada rolls along pretty well over the last 30 years of minority rule...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-09 03:19:54
1. I did not support any regime. Just believe if Iraqis don't want them they should lead the fight to remove them not some foreign country.
2. They were are Prime Minister; picked by party members country wide; not chosen by a minority or placed there by foreigners.
3.Trudeau and Cretien were federalists; Mulroney was American controlled a Canadian tragedy.
Canada needs another strong leader like Mr Trudeau. We may not have always agreed with his stand but we always knew what his stand was. Perhaps if we paid our Prime Ministers as much as we see hockey players being paid we would find a higher calibre of politician running for Prime Minister.
( ok, I would be screaming as much as anyone if they initiated such a raise)
It just shows where our priorities lie
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-11 21:55:48
Most Canadians agree with my view; he sold us out. He is the reason the Conservative party was almost wiped out in Canada.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:24:59
Yeah, but remember what Brian Tobin said at the Davos summit almost 4 years ago. He told Mr. Mulroney, who was in the audience at the time, that on free trade, Mr. Mulroney was right and the liberal party was wrong.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-16 01:52:15
That is Mr Tobin's opinion; it means nothing to me. I am sure there are SOME who think Mulroney did well for Canada; but I, like the majority of Canadians have not been impressed.
I have no strong political leanings. I make my decisions by judging the leader and candidates on the issues that I believe to be importants at the time. I do not support the idea of voting only to get rid of a party that is in power that seems to be prevalent these days.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-17 16:19:17
Well, I'm just happy with free trade. I wish the world could trade freely, but us rich countries don't want to share our grocery stores with poor countries (our subsidies, Canada, US, EU prevent third world food producers from competing on level ground).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
|
