Printer friendly version of: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/en/discussion/index.php?m=2858
 |
SecurityThank 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: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 22:40:57
Where are all these weapons that Iraq purchased. Lets deal in facts not fiction. The UN is still the best solution. The UN must make changes and the 5 permanent members and veto must go. The use of vetos for personal agendas is the biggest problem at the UN. Bribery and threats should not be allowed to be used. But we cannot allow one country make the rules.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-09 16:48:55
Fatmomma, I've got to say, you missed your calling: join Saddam's ministry of information. "May anyone who suspects we have chemical weapons have their bellies grilled in Hell!"
Seriously, its complete fiction to say they have nothing. At least you'll admit they USED to have WMDs - or do you deny that Kurds ever got gassed? Is that just American propaganda?
You must also admit that since 1998, we have had no way of verifying what they do and don't have.
Maybe you think Uday is so dumb that he could not be trusted with the job of hiding these weapons. That's optimistic. If anything, Saddam and his sons played public opinion the world over quite intelligently.
So, are you saying that Saddam, of his own volition, destroyed the weapons?
If he did, why didn't he videotape it and send that to the UN instead of the 12,000 page report. That would be his proof.
If the US does make the rules, the world will be a better place.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 17:09:47
"Seriously, its complete fiction to say they have nothing. At least you'll admit they USED to have WMDs "
I admit.
"You must also admit that since 1998, we have had no way of verifying what they do and don't have. "
I admit.
"Saddam and his sons played public opinion the world over quite intelligently. "
I agree.
"own volition, destroyed the weapons? "
Possibly.
"12,000 page report. That would be his proof. "
Iraq would have still been invaded, but its still a good question.
"If the US does make the rules, the world will be a better place. "
False.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-11 06:51:35
While I am inclined to agree with you on this point, there must be other considerations. Where is the best place to live? How is that determined?
It depends, I guess, on what people value. Riches? Safety? Freedom? I would not move to Detroit if I valued my safety. Nor would I move to a muslim country if I valued my freedom. I am happy to live in a socialist country like Canada because I do not value riches. I value equality, for every race, religion and gender.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-12 13:09:38
I agree also with you... The US can make the rules in their own country, but not for the world - US values are not accepted everywhere and would not go well in some countries.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cell
Date: 2003-04-11 17:53:44
Interesting take
1) "If the US does make the rules, the world will be a better place"
Point of Priviledge: The US government is in debt dominantly
because they have used their resources for external defence, only
remunerated in times of conflict. Yes the school yard bully
makes the rules, he also usually fails his classes. Perhaps Saddam's
report was an attempt at getting Washington to read past the fifth
grade level.
2) Vis a vis being able since 1998 to verify what they do and do not
have. Iraq has had chemical weapons for over 4 thousand years, the
fact is is that biologicals are too cheap to be valuable to economic warfare.
3) Every war is about who has the best "god" (see French), the US has
recently been Bobbittized, and is simply reasserting our manhood;
invading the near orient is kind of romantic.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-12 00:08:07
Amen, cell.
The only problem I see in 1) is that the 'schoolyard bully' has taken over the school by 'overwhelming unassailable force' and has declared that grades mean nothing and the bully himself will decide who gets what for lunch.
On point 2), I would like to add: we are seeing the US use the guidance of Mammon in regard to economic warfare, both 'return on investment-wise', and 'psychological dividend-wise'.
3)? Romanticism usually leads to the nursery or the morgue. An act of some sort of zany God, no?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-12 02:33:29
Used to have: yes The Un inspectors destroyed 91% of Iraq's WMD as of December 1988. Who says so: Scott Ritter, US Marine and former hawkish weapons inpector.He stated that as of Dec/1998 Iraq is qualitively disarmed. It has no functional capacity to develop biological, chemical or nuclear WMD. He, also, stated that in l998, Clinton pulled out weapons inspectors that this is what is referred to as the expullsion of the weapons inspectors.
The Kurds were gassed when Iraq (with backing from the USA) was at war with Iran. There is some doubt on whether Iraq or Iran was using the chemical weapons that killed the Kurds and whether the Kurds were the target or caught between the other two.
Iraq was disarmed originally by UN inspectors. repeat as you did.
It will not be a better world for any one nation to rule the world. This particular situation we saw the USA using fraudulent reports to justify their claim of Iraq possesing WMD. They bribed and threaten other UN countries to attempt to get a favourable vote to carry out this war.
There were no WMD used by Iraq; none have been found.
I expect a country like our friend the USA to be honest and trustworthy; I did not like or appreciate the underhanded methods they used for justifying this illegal invasion of Iraq.
Their goal besides procuring the control of oil in Iraq appears to be destroy the credibility of the UN so that the USA can have more complete control over international affairs.
They used the threats of terrorism to the USA to build support for this war that has now suddenly become a quest to liberate the Iraqi people. Why this sudden rush to "liberate" Iraq when they are supposed to be pursuing the terrorists. Who is Osama Bin Laden. Now so seldom mentioned
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:35:42
Essentially, because to liberate Iraq means:
1) You have the opportunity for a free press in the Arab middle east.
2) You have removed a man whose squandered the oil wealth of his country on expansionist dreams and killing his own citizens. Saddam's version of Baath ideology is expansionist and perverts Islam, like Osamma's fundamentalism, which only further fuels the so-called "clash of civilizations." You can tell me Saddam is not very religious himself, but I would tell you that Osamma doesn't come across as all that religious either.
3) You have removed a major backer of the dealth cult in Palestine which sends the best and brightest minds to blow themselves up while the cowardly old "spiritual" leaders chow down on figs all day long.
4) You create a situation of increased security for Israel which will enable us to force them to conceed settlements to the newly created Palestine.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-16 23:18:30
1 The Middle East appears to have a free press in Al Jazeera. (if those 3 attack on journalists were not proven to have been done for protection ; perhaps we can question the real freedom of press in the USA. I noticed yesterday the incident at Mosul quickly disappeared from news sites except Britains.
2. There is questions on whether these attacks on Iraq is evidence of Bush's expansionist ideas risking the lives of young military personnell.
3. Bush sends his young to do his dirty work while he and the military leaders are not there under fire.
4. Israel is equally responsible for
attacks between them and the Palestinians. They have killed 3x as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed. They have recieved money, arms and backing from the USA to do their killings.
%. I do hope that you are correct and that Bush will force Israel to cooperate with the Palestinians and that the two peoples can live in relative peace and harmony. It seems that the Palestinian situation is a major stumbling block to getting Middle East countries to calm down and not feel they are being discriminated against.
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
