DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
Printer friendly version of: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/en/discussion/index.php?m=2874

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

Some comments on answers... (Afghanistan attack unjustified)...

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-09 09:20:53


Even though I'm against this war, i must admit that the British troops are quite admirable, as well as their commanders...I think the US troops should take exemple on them...

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Some comments on answers... (Afghanistan attack unjustified)...

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-12 17:58:37


I believe you are correct the reregarding the British. Seldom or never hear of major blunder of friendly fire incidents or hitting innocent targets. It shows that collateral damage is not completely avoidable. I realize there will always be some civillian casualties. I wonder why so many in this day and age with superior computer technology and better, faster communication technology.
I do have reservations about all targets are unforeseen errors when we have all seen the "coalition" present fraudulent documents to support the attack on Iraq. I do not believe they are that ignorant that they were not aware that the documents are fraudulent.
Neither the attack on Afghanistan or Iraq were declared wars. We were lead to believe these actions were against specific targets within the country not involving civillians. I expected a little better intelligence, accuracy and restraint. I did not like to hear a group of villagers were wiped out because one was tall and could be Osama.
I expected better communications between cooperating forces. Our Canadian soldiers were killed needlessly; they were bombed after the
battles were more controlled not during the heat of the battle.
The American administration sought approval for this invasion claiming Iraq was a threat to the USA and that it possessed WMD. Now they have shifted their purpose to be to free the Iraqi people from a despotic dictator; this was not their focus when seeking to begin this invasion. I suspect this shift was taken to defect criticism if they could not find any WMD.




Reply to this message

Some comments on answers... (Afghanistan attack unjustified)...

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-14 06:34:56


Well i think, an analyst had it right when he was saying that the British have more experience in Peace Keeping than the Americans, so they are more patient...

Seriously, the fraudulent documents were crude forgeries, even Mr. El-Baradai (UN inspector) said that the CIA and MI6 would never have crafted so crude forgeries... The US and UK are to blame because they only took what came under their hands without double-checking anything...

I wonder what will happen with Syria...
Did you know who informed the US regarding the WMD's stored in Syria? It was not the CIA, but the Mossad ... And we know how Syria and Isreal 'love' each other...

Reply to this message

Some comments on answers... (Afghanistan attack unjustified)...

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-14 23:53:53


I did not believe they made the forgeries but I would hope the American intelligence knew that the documents were worthless but tried to pass them off anyway. There was also a plagiarized report that was copied from a student's 10 year old paper produced by Tony Blair.
Regarding Syria; from what I have read the people there probably need liberating more than Iraq. How does the USA have the right to decide if Syria can possess WMD? They are under no order that I am aware of not to possess any. The USA itself possesses many weapons of mass destruction. They definitely used cluster bombs which most countries are trying to ban. The USA refuses to ban landmines.
I do not like Syria or other unstable governments to possess WMD but is there any international law forbidding them of such possession. There may be; I am not aware of any. I plan on doing more checking on Syria.

Reply to this message

Previous Topic |  All Topics |  Start Topic  | Next Topic
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca