|
Participant: rb
Date: 2003-02-19 16:29:53
Hello. First I would like to express my satisfaction with seeing this forum available. I truly hope that concerns voiced here are read and taken into consideration by the Federal administration.
I would like to voice my concern over the overall assumptions that regularly appear in both the honourable Bill Graham's and the Prime Minister's speeches with regard to ours and the United States motivations with respect to foreign policy and Iraq in particular.
It is assumed that our intentions are good because our past intentions have been honourable. It is also assumed that whatever "official" statements that are issued by the US, other allies or ourselves are automatically true. This would be acceptable if our prior behaviour demonstrated accountability and honesty (especially for the US) but this is far from the case.
It is tacitly assumed that if stated by the Government (of either the US, Canada or our allies) that it must therefore be true and so does not require any further proof.
I would like to point out some former "facts" which have since been disproven but are still treated as sound in our foreign policy:
Kuwait incubator fallacy:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html
Summary: the US government hired a public relations which invented this story to fuel public support.
Amassing of Iraqi troops on Saudi Arabian border fallacy (used for justification of war):
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/077.html
Summary: independent verification of claim via commercial satellite photos showed no amassing of troops.
More recent cases include. . .
Plagiarized British Iraq dossier (link to original paper):
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html
Summary: The British Dossier was thoroughly disgraced when it became known that it was mostly plagiarized from a 12 year old student paper with some exaggeration of various terms to suggest a more menacing reality.
Photo of "terrorist poison and explosives training centre" fake:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/02/08/23122-ap.html
Summary: "...journalists who visited the site depicted in Powell's satellite photo found a half-built cinderblock compound filled with heavily armed Kurdish men, video equipment and children - but no obvious sign of chemical weapons-manufacturing."
These are but a small smattering of the available exmaples as to why the general population and the world at large doubts our intentions.
When allied governmental organziations are blatantly lying and/or fabricating evidence to further there cause and our own government accepts this as fact even despite easy to obtain proof to quite the contrary, what are we to assume about the true intentions of our civil servants? The recent huge swells of public protest - 5000+ on February 15th, 2003 in Victoria, B.C. for example http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/11756.php) show that I am not the only one questioning the motivations for our current foreign policy.
I do not intend this an attack against Bill Graham, I just cannot believe that a sane and moral person could even consider supporting aggression against a sovereign nation (or ignore far greater breaks with international law such as Isreal's behaviour in the middle east, gassing of Palestinians for example http://www.littleredbutton.com/gas_interviews/) if they were truly looking at the facts for themselves.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-19 19:20:37
rb, you couldn't be more incorrect. History and common sense have shown us time and time again that all governments do lie, and that they are to be trusted with a grain of salt. One should do his own research on the subject. I don't think that anyone takes what their government says as automatic truth anymore, so I fail to see the relevance of your posting. Everyone is aware of the lies and propaganda stories generated not just by the US, UK and Canada, but by all countries. It's just the way it works, and it's our job to filter through it.
BTW when were Palestinians gassed, and how on earth is Israel more of a threat than Iraq who has WMDs?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-19 19:52:38
"BTW when were Palestinians gassed, and how on earth is Israel more of a threat than Iraq who has WMDs?"
That is an excellent example right there of someone believing and repeating a government's unproven assertion.
Waterloo, the obvious research posted as links and your response that "one should do his own research on the subject" lead me to think that you neither thouroughly read the post nor investigated the links provided. Rather you simply repeated your uproven assertion having to do with Iraq's weaponry. If you have a contribution to make to the demonstrated existence of said weaponry by all means make it but spare everyone your simplistic parroting of the Bush administration's unproven assertions. We all get quite enough of that from the press.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-19 21:47:03
"...spare everyone your simplistic parroting of the Bush administration's unproven assertions. We all get quite enough of that from the press."
I second that motion :)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-20 14:29:16
well banquo, I don't know about you, but I have found internet resources to be incredibly unreliable to say the least. I did go to the link provided, and found no way to confirm what it said from an independent source. I am weary of going to links. If something such as that occurred, then there will undoubtedly be better sources of info on the subject, so I'll ask you not to jump to conclusions and assume I don't read the posts thoroughly.
As for "parroting" Bush, I do no such thing. What is right is right. More than one person will come to the correct conclusion if one looks at the evidence provided. Just because I come up with the same conclusion as he does, as does anyone with a shred of common sense, does not mean I parrot anyone. I also disagree with the death penalty for many of the same reasons our government does, does this mean I parrot them as well? I think people need to put on their thinking caps.
Lastly, all I see from the press (except for US officials) is anti war sentiment. Occasionally there will be an interview with one who understands the way things are, but this is a rarity. I don't watch a whole lot of US TV, but from what I do, and from what I see from the Canadian media, the anti-war people are interviewed, or writing columns far, far more than the pro war ones do. In my local paper, and in NAtional ones the majority of the content is antiwar.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-19 20:01:31
I myself have never heard of Palestinians being gassed either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I doubt it, though. However, Israel does have nukes and has in the past threatened to use them. I urge you to read "The Samson Option" by former Washington Post editor Seymour M. Hersh. It describes how Israel developed nuclear weapons at Dimona in the Negev desert with the help of France, at first, then with South Africa for testing. Interestingly, Israel and South Africa are the two countries forbidden to travellers from Muslim nations.
Another good read about Israel and Palestine is "Intifada", by Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari. There were (and are) many 'acts of terrorism' committed by both sides in that conflict, and although the book is a bit dated (1989) but most of what happened is still applicable.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-19 20:36:24
Fleabag
If your interested in a well researched history of the Arab/Israeli conflict, check out 'righteous Victims: a history of the Zionist Arab Conflict' copyright 2000, by Benny Morris. Of the numerous books I've read on the topic, including the one you give above (which isn't bad at all), I feel this one is the most comprehensive.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-20 14:32:01
Now, this is how you provide a credible resource to information. It is like a works cited page. A mere internet link does not suffice.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-19 20:11:08
Waterloo: I agree, and after viewing the report provided in the link above about the purported Israeli gas attack, I very seriously doubt its authenticity. Note however that Israel has possessed nuclear weapons since the late 1960's, so like Iraq, has WMDs. However, the initial success of the surprise attack launched by Egypt and Syria against Israel in 1973 demonstrates that the Israelis would never contemplate the use of nuclear weapons accept in the most extreme and adverse circumstances- much more serious than the grave threat they were presented by Syria and Egypt in 73.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-19 20:43:45
The threat was serious enough. Serious enough for the US military to send immediate aid so Israel did not resort to 'The Samson Option'.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-20 14:26:58
Fleabag
Although your point is well taken, most historians agree that Golda Meir and cabinet would not have resorted to that option unless the Syrians continued their advance from the Golan into the area of the Galilee. In fact, the Syrians deliberately stopped at the edge of the Golan, when there was virtually nothing to prevent them from continuing, accept of course the Samson option.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-20 10:41:18
Here it is, conclusive proof against Iraq
February 17 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/16/1045330466588.html
Armando Iannucci offers a collection of Colin Powell's useful facts relating to the proposed actions in the Gulf region.
A collection of Colin Powell's useful facts relating to the proposed actions in the Gulf region.
A: Seven proofs of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
1. On an audiotape, Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a "stinking cesspit of socialist debauchery". This criticism is much less hostile than the sort of thing he says about America, thus proving al-Qaeda has warm feelings towards Saddam Hussein.
2. Our surveillance has picked up chatter from al-Qaeda operatives talking about organising a "rendezvous". "Rendezvous" is a French word, and France has constantly obstructed American attempts to impose regime change in Iraq. So again, we see a clear connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
3. Our spy planes have photographed Saddam's deputy prime minister being driven in a motorcade of Mercedes cars. Mercedes is a German car, and Germany is in league with France to destroy America, like al-Qaeda. Therefore, etc.
4. The number plate on one of these cars was A03A0 1A, which, in the rear mirror of the car in front, spells al-Qaeda.
5. The motorcade was moving in an easterly direction through Baghdad. If you move in an easterly direction through France, you get to Germany.
6. Saddam is another Hitler. Germany had a Hitler. Again, a direct link with al-Qaeda.
7. Al-Qaeda operatives have recently been arrested in London. The Prime Minister of London, Tony Blair, then visited France for a meeting with Jacques Chirac. Chirac then visited Bonn to celebrate 40 years of his alliance with Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. Schroeder had a meeting with Putin of Russia, who then received Hans Blix, who went to Baghdad. Again, proof of a direct link.
B: Five fascinating facts about Iraq.
1. Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, occupying an area the equivalent of 500,000 American aircraft carriers.
2. Iraq has 57 kilometres of coastline. That's the equivalent of 300,000 Apache attack helicopters stretching 57 kilometres.
3. Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, a land mass which, if turned into flour, would be enough to feed bread to the children of Iraq for 100 years. But Saddam refuses to do this and instead spends his money on presidential palaces, which, if converted to milk, would be enough to fill all the oil wells of the Middle East for a fortnight. That's why we have to stop him getting to the wells before he does this.
4. Iraq has 35,000 square kilometres of irrigated land. That's the equivalent of 300 million bottles of anthrax end to end. So where are they?
5. Iraqis consume 27.3 billion kWh of electricity every year, enough to power one Star-Wars style anti-missile system. So where is it, and who's it pointing at?
C: The United Nations constitution explained once and for all.
1. The UN has a 15-member Security Council, of which France, Britain, China, Russia and America are permanent members, with veto rights.
2. The UN Charter allows for the permanent members to use their veto to overrule any majority decision of the council with which they disagree.
3. This is not applicable in cases where France, China or Russia use their veto in unreasonable cases, "unreasonable" being defined as a veto against any recent council majority decisions supported by Britain or America.
4. In these cases, the charter will probably allow America or Britain to veto that veto, thus upholding the earlier unvetoed will of the council, unless the council arrives at a majority decision contrary to the wishes of America or Britain, in which case all the permanent members of the council ought to be obliged to veto it, or to veto any attempt to veto the veto.
Armando Iannucci is a columnist with The Daily Telegraph, London.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-20 23:19:41
real helpful toward the discussion Banquo. This is what you have had to resort to?
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I see no evidence of Al Qaeda linked with Iraq, and think that Washington hurt its credibility considerably by trying to make that link. The proof is circumstantial at best, and I have a hard time believing it when the only people making the claim are the US and UK. It wasn't necessary, Saddam has given them all the material breaches and lies they need. A very stupid move in my opinion.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-02 12:27:50
I have found very disturbing information on the internet. I have checked several site and get the same information. Richard Cheney former attorney general of the USA brought charges of war crimes naming : G. Bush sr., Quayle, cheney, and Schwarkopf. They were found guilty of 19 charges. One site is:wwwdeoxy.org/wc/warcrim3.htm At first I thought this to be some Iraq propaganda site but have tried other routes and come up with the same information. It, also asserts that the USA orchestrated the Gulf war .
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 16:29:34
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that the US encouraged or prompted Iraq to invade Kuwait?
That would be pretty worrying...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-04 22:51:07
Go to the following site: (http://www.deoxy.org/wc-myth-htm) read "The Charges" I found much of the material hard to believe at first but have checked it out from different angles; comes out the same. If you check other areas of the site; you will find other startling unnerving information. These charges were brought to the UN by a former attorney general of the USA, Mr.Ramsey Clark.
I would be very relieved if anyone could prove to me that this and the other sites I have found are bogus.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-05 20:48:42
The US Ambassador to Iraq in 1990, April Glaspie, was summoned to meet with Saddam Hussein on July 25. Glaspie said, " I have direct instruction from the president to seek better relations with Iraq".
Later in the meeting Glaspie told Saddam "But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say that the US would insist on a non-violent settlement."I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship-not in the spirit of confrontation-regarding your intentions."
Source: The Commanders
Author:Bob Woodward, 1991
Later, Glaspie said 'about 80% of what was published was true'. Many felt that the US had given the 'green light' to Saddam to invade Kuwait. The US says he misinterpreted their overtures.
God forbid that the US government would deceive anyone for their own ends.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-02 13:40:25
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
As usual you'll have to copy and paste this into another browser window in order to see it. Eric Alterman, who writes for The Nation and msnbc.com and who is the author of several books including his newest called "What Liberal Media?", first drew attention to this blog a few weeks back. As far as he or anyone else has been able to determine, it's legitimately from Baghdad.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: AG
Date: 2003-03-07 18:35:58
We should continue to work for a peaceful solution in the Iraqi crisis. Millions of innocent Iraqi children will die and are dying because of sustained bombing. War will further harm the decimated infrastructure of Iraq causing untold misery to innocent civilians who are already suffering from a war that has never really ended; continued bombing and 12 years of brutal sanctions.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-08 14:12:30
An item of interest in the Washington Post; "documents that purportedly showed Iraq officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years age were deemed "NOT AUTHENTIC" after careful scrutiny by UN and independent experts. " Couldn't see date but it is web sites front page. Another proven fraudulent "proof" of Iraq weapons of mass destruction
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-08 22:26:48
Millions of Iraqi children are but a small sacrifice when one worships Mammon.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: brockbank
Date: 2003-03-12 00:12:50
I totally agree with rb. Canada has always been a peace keeping country and for us to follow George Bush in a war with Iraq is totally unethical.
George Bush keeps on saying that Saddam Husein should disaram and has weapons of mass destruction. What do you call 200,000 troops with tanks and bombers? Tinker toys.
George Bush is a god damn hyprocrite and Canada should not follow in his footsteps.
Bush should know where Saddams weapons of mass destruction are. He sold them to him during the Iran-Iraq war and his scientists showed Iraq how to make biological weapons.
As for a regime change. It should be George Bush who goes.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-12 14:28:57
One thing which is important to note, peace keeping is useless when there is no enforcment with use of force. Please take a look at the Rwanda and Srebrenica massacred. Canada should continue its peace keeping role, but only when this role is clear, and when there is actually a chance of success.
I do not agree at all with Bush's stance, and i agree with you, but you should review your definition of weapons of mass destruction... To be saying regular troops as well as biological weapons are both weapons of mass destruction is a little bit wrong.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
