logo du MAECI partenariat Logo de byDesign eLab, un centre indépendant de recherche, développement et production en forums électroniques pour l'élaboration des politiques, qui a vu le jour en 1997 dans le cadre du programme McLuhan de l'Université de Toronto
Accueil du MAECI Plan du site Aide Politiques Partenariat Commentaires Netcast English
 
Bienvenue
Message du Ministre
Document de réflexion
Répondre aux questions
Réponses
Forum de discussion
 

Conclusion: Le monde que nous souhaitons

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.

Ce forum est bilingue, et les participants peuvent rédiger leurs commentaires dans la langue de leur choix.

USA role in the UN

Participant: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-05 01:05:47


Good luck Codco, we all want to know the true facts but with so much misinformation and wild propaganda; we all have to do the best we can. Get as many different points of view as you can find; then use your own common sense and logic.
The USA lost my vote of confidence when they started producing proof of Iraq"
's possession of WMD. These proofs were quickly discovered to be fraudulent, old and plagiarized or just lacking in proof. Did they think they could fool the world because I don't believe that they are that stupid as to not know their proofs were bogus. That is what got me started on looking for more information.
The Americans quick end to looking for Osama; to turn their attention to Iraq all sent up warning signals. It appeared a little too convenient to me.
I think they decided to finish the job that should have been done 11 years earlier since the troops were already there.

Répondre à ce message

Voir en contexte du sujet

USA role in the UN

Participant: codc01

Date: 2003-04-09 15:59:30


I have read some article titles about the UN reform at the UN site, but they were 3 years old...

Répondre à ce message

USA role in the UN

Participant: cfallon

Date: 2003-04-09 16:37:59


I agree with you Fatmomma on alot of what you just said! :)

Yes, the US attempts to rally the security council were half-hearted and not very well executed. They knew, from 50 years of dealing with the UN, that this was a stupid route to take and could only end in their embarrassment - that's all France cares about when it comes to its veto.

I think they felt they should have finished the job 11 years ago. But what stopped Bush Sr.? He didn't have a UN mandate and knew he wouldn't get one.

Bush Sr. was the only president to go to the security council to authorise military action. He did this as a means of empowering the UN post-cold war. But, the set up of the security council is so far removed from global reality that the US quickly learned not to bother. That's why we have no UN support of the Kosovo campaign.

The government is now telling us that because attacking Serbia was done under the auspices of NATO that it was sufficiently multilateral. But this means that had the Warsaw Pact attacked a country, Canada would have said, "its perfectly alright, since they are doing it multilaterally."

If you think that Saddam's Iraq

1 - had no WMDs nor the desire to acquire them.
2 - had no expansionist ambitions.
3 - would not collude with Al-Quaeda or Al-Ansar or Al-Anything to kill some Americans

then I suggest you apply for a job in Saddam's ministry of information! :)

Répondre à ce message

USA role in the UN

Participant: codc01

Date: 2003-04-09 17:16:34


My answers:
1) They had.
2) Not anymore - historically Kuweit was part of Iraq - just remember that fact please (that does not mean its ok, just have to keep it in mind thats all).
3) Religion and Baas don't work very well together - and several analysts have said Saddam would never do that.

Répondre à ce message

USA role in the UN

Participant: cfallon

Date: 2003-04-10 10:11:10


Was that analyst Eric Margolis?

Or better yet, an analyst from the Parisian left bank? They are such good analysts!

Répondre à ce message

USA role in the UN

Participant: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-10 01:19:20


Believe me Bush left no bribe unpromised; no threat unspoken
But he failed : he lied and produced fraudulent reports, The USA is responsible for the UN not acting where it should many times because American used its veto.
Mr Bush stopped because he was afraid of being charged with War Crimes for massacreing retreating soldiers (Kuwait and Iraqi and Iraqi citizens along a main highway. Charges state the USA used napalm.
Saddam may have had the desire but he obviously does not have any significant WMD; none have been used.
Saddam is a vile dictator but not the only or worst in the world.
Turkey is attacking and killing Kurds living in that country.
The USA does not have the right to make decisions for the world; they assigned that task to the UN
The USA will be looking to the UN to help pay for the damage they have done.
Destroying a dictatorship and installing a democracy does not ensure an acceptable leadership, Zimbabwe is a good example. The people of a country must be willing and motivated enough to initiate the removal of a dictatorship or they will probably return to another similar government

Répondre à ce message