Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Security

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

Cellucci Speech

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

Show in topic

Cellucci Speech

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

Cellucci Speech

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

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic