|
Contributor: floyd
Date: 2003-01-23 18:50:18
President Bush & Tony Blair seem to be the only international leaders to share their strong views on the importance of preventing one of the world's 'New Hitler's' , that is, of course - Sadam Hussein - from expanding his longstanding evasive tactics of extremely dangerous military-arms proliferation, from disrespecting United Nations 'world-community agreements', and finally, from allowing the all-to-pervasive world-leaders and citizens (esp. France and Germany)'stick-your-head-in-the-sand' myopic mentality, from 'sitting-back' (for a very short-sighted peace-time),
only to think they are all 'doing good,' when really, their lack of proactive intervention in Hussein's horrid policies, is accomplishing nothing, but blind-sighted entrance into the detruction of our younger generation's future freedom and beauty we all have so good in Canada, US, and Europe.
It is unfortunate that we must go to war. We now, after Hussein operating as he has, and continues to, with no real regard for good, decent and fair UN 'world-community' agreements, know that there is no choice left for Hussein and his country than war against Iraq.
Please face reality all you peace-loving people! Hussein is NO pussy-cat!
If it were the 1930s or 40s would you take your same short-sighted position on Hitler's mad mind? I think you all would. This is the MOST unfortunate aspect of this entire issue; that is, your short-sighted views on the goodness of no war on Iraq.
Every issue has a time-limit for decision and action, and unfortunately, Hussein's 'time-limit' is WAY overdue. The American offerings of exile for all Senior Iraqi officials was just another examplary attempt at offering Iraq a peaceful, gentlemanly resolve.
We must invade Iraq now, and launch a vitally serious war on Hussein, for the benefit of our, and other's future.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rmk
Date: 2003-01-24 08:51:00
Well said. There is only one thing I would like to see and that is the final evidence. The U.S. govermnment has something to show but, for whatever reason, has not done so yet. Maybe because it is weak, I don't know. Time will tell.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-08 12:50:35
Maybe because intelligence relies on people within the regime feeding information who could be shot for the mere suspicion of disagreeing with Saddam.
Maybe you can't show all your cards because you'll never get dealt a hand again.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: holmes
Date: 2003-01-24 09:47:37
The task of searching Iraq for any concealed weapons has not had enough time. Iraq is a large country. The UN needs to be sure everything has been done to search for these weapons. It is not our homes and lives that will be destroyed in this possible war. It's not a safe video game. I am suspicious of US intentions since it so far has not revealed what proof it supposedly has. If the US has proof then share it with the inspectors and the other world leaders. They either have no proof and want war to secure oil and domination of the region or there is some as yet unknown reason for withholding said proof. As long as there is no smoking gun world leaders cannot be expected to be enthusiastic about war.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: dsteve3
Date: 2003-01-24 11:07:31
There is a huge difference between Hitler and Hussein. Its the difference between '30's Germany and '90's Iraq.
The people of Iraq have sufferred enough. Hussein deserves to be removed, granted, but twelve years of withering embargo, combined with regular bombings (you are niave if you think we have only bombed 'military targets' - look into what happenned in Yugoslavia).
The bottom line is there is no process we can trust. We have not done a thorough job in Afghanistan - the warlords are as much a menace today as they were years ago. Iraq is in far worse condition. Ethnic rivalry will shred the nation, Turkey is feeling very threatened by the Kurdish population, and the infrastructure of the nation is in as bad condition, considering the importance of their oil reserves.
In '91, we kicked one dictator out of Kuwait to be replaced by another, the emir. The propaganda employed (lies about throwing babies out of incubators) convinced us we were 'just'. Considering the profits Halliburton made through Cheney's connections, its obvious that we cannot control conflict of interest.
Given these facts, war is not an option. What is? This is extremely important, but it does not validate war.
Yet if we can intimidate Hussein to the extent we have (the war posturing by Pres. Bush has been a great motivator), how far can this be taken. It would be just as expensive to occupy Iraq as it would be to intimidate them into allowing opposition, freedom of the press, and open, monitored elections.
The really difficult part is monitoring our own actions. We failed the Serbian people in a dismal display of economic manipulation. We can't trust ourselves! How do we cast judgement, no matter how obvious or cruel, when we can't even control our own rampaging greed?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-01-24 11:26:27
Let me ask you this. Are you prepared to do the fighting yourself? Are you prepared to be witness and to be held responsible for the thousands of death that will result from a military invasion? What proof do you or does anyone have that Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace? Thankfully, our Prime Minister is asking for more proof before he commits Canadian troops to join in any military action.
Finally, why now? Why at this particular point in times does the U.S. and Britain feel that an attack against Iraq is necessary. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the U.S. economy is floundering, could it? Do you really feel that it is justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in order to strengthen our economy?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-06 13:39:06
Do you think sane people declare war to improve economic performance? If so, please never run for office (it would be terrifying!) Please understand, it is deeply offensive to accuse people of having disgusting motives for their actions or beliefs. It is a liberty that left-leaning Canadians feel they have, but the rest of us must start levelling equally offensive motives behind the anti-war activists.
Could it be that people against war are secretly hoping Saddam will "solve" the Palestinian conflict once and for all?
Could it be that people against war are secretly hoping Saddam will sneak a nuke into Detroit, set it off and guarantee the Red Wings won't make it to the Stanley Cup finals?
Could it be that people against war want Saddam to eliminate those trouble-making Kurds?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Iceberg
Date: 2003-01-24 17:07:30
The US is driving for war just for Iraq's oil reserves. It's nothing about Hussein that the US Government is really concerned about. Hussein's just a cover for the real intentions. North Korea is far more of a threat to the US, but since NK doesn't have oil or any other valuable resource to the US, the US won't invade them, no matter the circumstances.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-01-25 22:54:15
The world is a much different place to make war these days. North Korea, or anyone for that matter, cannot 'sneak up' on anyone in this electronic spying age. That is, physically, like Pearl Harbour. They can only sneak up under false pretenses, like infiltrating terrorists. There are many lessons of the 'trojan horse' theory like the Tet offensive in Vietman that are a result of bad (or lax) assesments of threat that are still useful.
The US has given the world, and Iraq, a Sitzkrieg of sorts, by announcing their intention of sending troops to 'do war' with Iraq. Even the US cannot surprise anyone in today's instant media age.
North Korea is no threat to the US mainland, just to it's overseas interests. It's 'economic colonies' abroad are what should be monitered for any action by the US that would preclude action or war with N. Korea.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: CdninCali
Date: 2003-01-25 23:57:41
I think what needs to be considered is how much oil sits in the Gulf of Mexico.. Then there might be a valid point of saying it is for the reserves of oil. Granted yes the refined product from the Mid East contains less polluting sulfur than what we have in North America. You alos best be looking to the North country as well.. Mr Bush still wants to see oil exploration in Alaska. I need more of a convincing argument it is about the oil. One of the things that should be considered perhaps is the use of more fuel economic vehicles. Gees cut of the major demand and the money from the middle east gets less and less. Oh wait but this can't be right eithier by tree hugger standards, because this would mean we could lift the sanctions and still make these people suffer because once again the money is not there.. What needs to be in place is an higher education for these people in the Mid East. They need to learn the value of our systems and see it brings a little prosperity to all. Enhancing the qauility of life. The dictator needs to be over thrown so his people can survive by embracing a new way of living without forgetting about who they are. Does this not seem to hard to understand. The prosperity of Canada and the world relies on education of the masses, and I am not talking about the arcaic Industrial age education we recieve in the public school systems.
Tim...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-01-24 18:45:09
During the 30's and 40's the United States did not want to go to war against Hitler. They were isolationist and the axis powers declared war on the US first. The US simply did not see any benefit for themselves by getting into a 'european war'. Even the torpedoing of the USS Reuben James did not move the US to declare Nazi Germany as it's enemy. Now, however, the US does see gain for itself by decaring war. The only trouble is, most of the world is questioning the motives of the US. There were (and are) many regimes in the world far worse than Iraq right now, and much worse in the recent past. The US is going full force into the country with the #2 oil reserve capacity, ignoring dozens of countries with worse human rights violations. There may be some that are not as immediately threatening to the US, but the issue of war with Iraq is much deeper than the US is willing to talk about.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-01-25 10:23:01
Perhaps you should read this. Is this what you advocate?
US weapons secrets exposed
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday October 29, 2002
The Guardian
Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned yesterday that the US is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.
The scientists, specialists in bio-warfare and chemical weapons, say the Pentagon, with the help of the British military, is also working on "non-lethal" weapons similar to the narcotic gas used by Russian forces to end last week's siege in Moscow.
They also point to the paradox of the US developing such weapons at a time when it is proposing military action against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is breaking international treaties.
Malcolm Dando, professor of international security at the University of Bradford, and Mark Wheelis, a lecturer in microbiology at the University of California, say that the US is encouraging a breakdown in arms control by its research into biological cluster bombs, anthrax and non-lethal weapons for use against hostile crowds, and by the secrecy under which these programmes are being conducted.
"There can be disagreement over whether what the United States is doing represents violations of treaties," Mr Wheelis told the Guardian. "But what is happening is at least so close to the borderline as to be destabilising."
In a paper to be published soon in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the two academics focus on recent US actions that have served to undermine the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. In a move that stunned the international community last July, the US blocked an attempt to give the convention some teeth with inspections, so that member countries could check if others were keeping the agreement.
Mr Dando believes Washington's motive for torpedoing the deal, which had the support of its allies, was to maintain secrecy over US research work on biological weapons. He said that work includes:
· CIA efforts to copy a Soviet cluster bomb designed to disperse biological weapons
· A project by the Pentagon to build a bio-weapon plant from commercially available materials to prove that terrorists could do the same thing
· Research by the Defence Intelligence Agency into the possibility of genetically engineering a new strain of antibiotic-resistant anthrax
· A programme to produce dried and weaponised anthrax spores, officially for testing US bio-defences, but far more spores were allegedly produced than necessary for such purposes and it is unclear whether they have been destroyed or simply stored.
In each case, the US argued the research work was being done for defensive purposes, but their legality under the BWC is questionable, the scientists argue.
For example, a clause in the biological weapons treaty forbids signatories from producing or developing "weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict".
Furthermore, signatories agreed to make annual declarations about their biodefence programmes, but the US never mentioned any of those programmes in its reports. Instead, they emerged from leaks and press reporting.
The focus on Washington's biological and chemical weapons programme comes at an awkward time for the Bush administration, which is locked in negotiations at the UN for a tough resolution on arms inspections of Iraq. According to Mr Dando, British and US research into hallucinogenic weapons such as the gas BZ encouraged Iraq to look into similar agents. "We showed them the way," he said.
Mr Dando added that the US was currently working on "non-lethal" weapons similar to the gas Russian forces used to break the Moscow theatre siege. Those include "calmative" agent which are designed to knock people out without killing them.
"What happened in Moscow is a harbinger of what is to come," Mr Dando said. "There is a revolution in life sciences which could be applied in a major way to warfare. It's an early example of the mess we may be creating."
He added that Britain "is implicated as well", as the Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate has worked with British officers on its research.
Jonathan Tucker, a chemical weapons expert at the US Institute for Peace in Washington, said much of the work on non-lethal weapons was being carried out by an institute under the US justice department but was funded by the Pentagon.
"They are trying to keep it at arms length, but it is problematic especially for military purposes. The chemical weapons convention makes a very clear distinction between riot control and incapacitants," he said.
While Mr Tucker believes that such knock-out gases are explicitly banned under the treaty, Mr Dando and Mr Wheelis believe the Pentagon has exploited a loophole that allows for such weapons for "law enforcement purposes".
But by blurring the edges of the treaty, they argue the US is inviting other countries to do the same. The US, Mr Dando said, "runs the very real danger of leading the world down a pathway that will greatly reduce the security of all."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: SAJ
Date: 2003-01-27 15:13:36
I agree with Floyd 100 percent. But, we must follow international laws and any decision to invade Iraq must come from Security Council. Either Bush or Blair does not have legitimate right, under international laws and prevailing international political culture, to invade Iraq. There is no question that Saddam is an evil and he must be dealt accordingly. But, we must not start a tradition where a stronger country can go and invade a smaller country at will without any regard of international law. UN charter is more important than Bush or Blair’s foreign policy objectives. I will not have any problem going to war if UN says it OK. We will have chaos all around the globe if bigger countries start to invade smaller or weaker countries. Today, if it’s legitimate for US to invade Iraq, then tomorrow it will be legitimate for China to invade Taiwan or Pakistan, it will be legitimate for Russia to invade Japan, It will be legitimate for India to invade Burma or Bhutan or Sri Lanka. We can not go back to the days of international lawlessness.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: afrancis
Date: 2003-01-31 15:45:18
Although I do not agree with Floyd, I commend you for recognizing the terrible, terrible dangers of non-UN-sanctioned PREVENTIVE military campaigns. I wish more people on both sides of this question would.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: wasim
Date: 2003-01-30 04:31:48
I disagree with Floyd's assessment that Iraq must be attacked immediately. I find it hard to believe that Iraq is a threat to the rest of the world when the facts cleary demonstrate the opposite: Iraq's military forces were annihilated during GulfWarI. The coalition against him lost less than 200 soldiers (many due to friendly fire). Saddam Hussein was routed.
The sanctions imposed on Iraq for the last decade have ensured that he could not rebuild his forces. For those who remember, the vast majority of Saddam Husseins weapons were not manufactured in Iraq (ie, Scuds from Russia, MIG and Mirage fighters from France and Russia, tanks from Russia and China). Iraq is like most other third world countries in that it must buy its real weapons (planes, tanks, missles) from other real powers. The sanctions imposed on Iraq have assured that Iraq remains a declawed and toothless animal incapable of attacking anybody. Ask yourself the last time Iraq shot down a single plane over the no-fly zones... the answer is never.
We shouldn't accept America's rhetoric that "for the sake of freedom" we must disarm Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. I also find it hard to believe that America really cares about the Iraqi people: its well documented that the sanctions imposed on Iraq have caused immense suffering on the Iraqi people.
If BushII wants to go to war, its unfortunate and we should not get involved. Canada should stay out of America's wars. We're a peace-loving country that's not looking for a fight and we have nothing to prove.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-01 14:33:17
There is a comparison to Hitler in the present world situation but you have the wrong comparison. Which country's leaders are invading and controlling other countries. Which countries leaders are using threats to get smaller countries to support them. Who is it that the world is trying to appease to prevent war. You get the gold star when you answer G W Bush. It is this megamaniac that shows no proof of Iraq's weaponry; that is doing its best to thwart a peaceful resolution by the UN. He is also trying to destroy the UN. Why, so that America has more control. It is G W Bush and his little side kick Tony Blair that are threatening world peace. Saddaam is a ruthless evil dictator but his threat to world peace is miniscule to that of G,W. Bush.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-02 06:57:02
Ok, I don't know who started this comparison with Hitler. But there is a serious misconception, there is no
comparison at all with Hilter either with Saddam or Bush. I think what people meant was the history which led to the 2nd world war instead, and i must admit that these people are right.
Most of us know that Mr. Bush wants to invade Iraq for geopolitical reasons, but people should also note that the inspectors left Iraq in 1998, and were not able to inspect anything since that time, which is contrary to the UN resolutions. What happened between 1998 and now? Nothing!!
The world did nothing and did not continue to enforce inspections, which is very bad for UN's image. Now Bush comes along and says he must disarm (and this i totally agree with him), the problem is he wants to invade Iraq for the WRONG reasons, there lies the big problem.
As for comparison with the 2nd world war, simple : Hitler invaded some countries, but the people of the world were so bent on peace that they said, ok, and let us not forget NEVER the image of the UK Prime Minister Mr. Chamberlain getting off his plane in the UK with a paper signed by Hitler saying we would not invade any more countries. A bit later (I don't know exactly when?), Poland was invaded. Hitler had one of the most powerful armies in Europe, the other countries knew this, and nobody tried to stop it, being too bent on PEACE. That led to the 2nd world war.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-03 22:24:22
Just as the US has been invading countries; the rest of the world is saying ok long as it is not us. We want peace; don't want you looking our way.
Just look how many more times Israel has broken UN resolutions. Last time I checked it was Israel 20 Iraq 7. So why isn't the US going after them. The US has the most powerful army in the world. The rest of us want peace. But no country is willing to stick out their neck to stop. Very proud of Turkey for withdrawing their support for war
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-04 07:44:13
No, the world is not saying that at all, Canada is trying to find a compromise, you did not hear about this? Where do you get your information?? France, Germany is saying no also. Please check your sources before saying nobody is doing anything.
What is your definition of doing something?
Saddam must be disarmed, there is no question about this.
Don't mix all issues together please. Regarding the US stance on Israel, i am 100% behind your point of view, the US is blatantly wrong in that case. Someone should stand up and say to Israel that they should enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, but nobody wishes to stand up.
All UN resolutions should be respected and enforced for everyone.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 15:08:58
I think you should cut Israel some slack.
Iraq is not surrounded by hostile neighbours who think it shouldn't exist.
Iraq hasn't been invaded and isn't subject to constant terrorist threats.
Israel virtually is. Even peace with Jordan and Egypt doesn't mean that large swaths of those populations want Israel destroyed.
Obviously, we have to get Israel to respect UN resolutions, but not at the expense of being destroyed.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-04 16:30:39
Yes, there is a problem when the other countries think that Israel does not have the right to exist.
I personally think they have the right to exist, but they should respect the UN security council.
Anyways, the Israel issue is too complex for me... So I cannot give a balanced opinion on this topic.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-04 22:01:08
Was only tongue in cheek suggesting US should be attacking Israel; just wanted to show that they do not have strong grounds for attacking Iraq and killing more defenceless people. Iraq is trying to show it is willing to disarm; I think I would be unwilling to disarm if some goliath told me he would kill me anyhow. Bush does not want to give peace a chance. The information that I found from several sites states that The USA under Bush senior persuaded Kuwaiti to over extract oil from a joint Iraq/kuwaiti oil fields. Then waited for Iraq to react. This is how the Gulf War started. Must say I didn't want to believe it myself but every route I take for information comes up with same conclusion
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-04 23:02:08
Iraq is surrounded and being bombed by the USA,every day in the so called "no fly zone area" . This has been happening with no defensive reaction from Iraq. Iraq was more than invaded by the US during the Gulf war; it was a full scale massacre. It was not only military targets hit but thousands of innocent civillians too. The USA's heavy backing of Israel puts it on a different playing field and less ready to make any concessions. They mock the USA stand making very similar statements to justify their actions and do not believe they need to heed any other authority than the USA.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-06 07:24:08
What no fly zone are you talking about?
The north of Iraq or the south of Iraq? One was voted by the security council (I think), the other one was created by the UK and the US... So one of them is illegal, and i think the Iraq army is right in defending itself in the southern no fly zone.
Yes, Israel should respect the UN Resolutions, and i think the US governement should put more pressure on Israel. But I also think that Saddam should be disarmed, as i said earlier,
I agree that force may be necessary, but only as a last resort. Canada's position is the right one (a deadline with an objective based disarmement plan)... As i said, the US is going into Iraq for the wrong reasons entirely.
Reply to this message
|
|
