Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

The Three Pillars

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

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-04-15 00:56:57

What I mean by the 5% is that which still eludes us, so yes, it is critical.
Secondly, the US has not changed it's goals in about 100 years. Situations change, but not attitudes. That is the unfortunate part.
What changed? What was done differently before that is not being done now? The US has acted on the international stage for it's own benefit. Some Iraqi's, in this case, may be better off for a short time. That is not why the US acted the way it did, but they will play it up in the media for all the mileage they can. Until the truth comes out, that is.

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-15 08:44:02

There is some views that suggest the re-building of Iraq will be very lucrative and could be being used to kick start the US economy. The USA is handing out many long term contracts all going to USA companies even the coalition countries of Britain and Spain have been shut out so far. By what right is the USA handing out long term contracts in Iraq;divvying up their oil fields. Shouldn't only short term emergency rebuilding contracts be their limit. That is why it is extremely important for the UN to become involved quickly to safeguard Iraq's rights for future control of their own country. How does this "liberate Iraq" if the USA holds the purse strings to their oil income?

Liberating Iraqis and/or their oil fields was not the stated goal for invading Iraq; it was supposed to be to find and destroy Iraq's WMD which obviously was done by the UN in 1998 as stated by a former UN inspector former US marine and weapons inspector; Scott Ritter.

Reply to this message

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-04-16 09:00:53

Scott Ritter is not credible, I would suggest you look into his history, it is rather disgusting. He has no credibility.

Reply to this message

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-16 21:28:23

That's your opinion. I find the Americans are good at trying to discredit anyone that criticizes the government. They do their best to discredit Ramsey Clark too.
Scott Ritter is looking very credible now. Where are all those WMD. They don't even have adequate basic military equipment and their military has no training or discipline. All Saddam had was his big mouth.

Reply to this message

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-18 17:51:01

Fine Barrett, you do not like Ritter. How about checking out Veteran Intelligence professionals for Sanity
It is a group of 24 former intelligence officials from the CIA, State Dept
there are several sites. They do not support the invasion of Iraq
Start at this site; attention to terrorism section
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003113.php

Reply to this message

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-04-21 14:08:31

Well I have looked at the link you left and it doesn't seem to work. I checked the website and couldn't find the article. Perhaps you could give more directions to find it. Thanks.

As for Ritter, did you look into his history? Do you know what he has been convicted for?

Reply to this message

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-21 17:06:13

Sorry, I missed a number. They are "Veteran Intelligence Professional for Sanity". 24 ex cia, state department, etc USA
"http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030113.php
I think you can get more information regarding them on search

Reply to this message

Canada's Role in International Affairs

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-04-15 11:27:43

What's changed is that the US has changed the idea of what is in their own interest.

100 years ago, the US was far more isolationist.

12 years ago, the US thought it could use the UN as a means to bring nations together and act in concert. As you recall, Bush Sr. was the first president to seek UN approval for its actions.

6 years ago, the US realised the UN was not going to be a place where things got done. So, they skipped it and attacked Serbia via NATO.

2 years ago, the US realised that there was a deep well of hatred that had organized into an active network of terrorists seeking mass destruction of the US. The result: a massive loss of casualties, a massive shock to the economy, and the destruction of one of the great symbols of North American culture.

Let's watch the next two years unfold.

I hope and think that Bush will push for peace between Palestine and Israel - a peace that involves "painful concessions" from Israel (in quotes, from Sharon).

I think alot of positive things will come out of Iraq and Iran.

I hope Canada wakes up and takes part in what has always been its foreign policy mission: BRING FREEDOM, MAKE PEACE.

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic