War Criticism Misguided. <i>-Cheney</i>

[Guest terrier]

Dear Lord how patronizing. I guess I could learn how to talk down to people by reading your posts.

[Guest terrier]

Oh for heaven's sake. Of course the Canadian Iraquis are not pro Sadaam that's why they are here. And of course some Iraquis are over the moon to have seen the overthrew of Sadaam. And of course some Iraquis are still loyal to Sadaam and of course some Iraquis while not loyal to Sadaam will still see foreign troops as invaders because they are nationalists and of course some Iraquis will not like the Americans but will be pragmatic and accept them as the new rulers as least temporarily. I don't think there has ever been a situation in any country where everyone of the population is in agreement.

If however you have bought into the idea that the US is universally revered in Iraq then you are in for a few surprises. Maybe yesterday's suicide bomb was the first of many.

Even George Bush has said the situation remains fluid and there are still dangers.

In fact quite a number of coalition soldiers were killed and wounded earlier by Iraquis who pretended to be 'liberated'. Remember that?

[Guest G3]

"Well whoopee."



I am not sure how to address such a well thought out rebuttal. I stare in awe of your intellect.

G3

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Did you watch CNN last night? It seemed there was at least a mile of smiling soldiers going home. That should have satisfied your yearning to see more Iraqis, this time from Northern Iraq, beaming with happiness that there leadership abandoned them and they get to go home. People were driving by honking their horns, presumably with excitement, as the soldiers made the trek home to their families.

No, the looters weren't the ones which I am using as a measuring stick of the Iraqi sentiment. That was another group, much smaller.

While Bush has yet to present to the world weapons of mass destruction, it doesn't mean there aren't any. Maybe Saddam was killed in the first bombing attack and that's when the leadership began to collapse. I'll reserve judgment about that for now, but like you, remain hopeful that they find them.

Rome wasn't built in a day, so I don't yet consider myself overly naive about this issue just yet. In general though, I agree that I am. The older I get, the less naive and more cynical I secretly become inside. So long as that is carefully balanced with optimism, which comes to me naturally, I think I'll do fine. Thanks for your concern all the same.

Jason

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

You are free to do a search on ex-skygeek. I've been with this forum from the beginning, and had been a member of the previous forum for most of its existance as well. I'm afraid you will be disappointed to learn that I am far from being a patronizing person by nature and historically through my posts here.

You had such strong opposing views about the war, I was surprised to read your last respond of "whoopee", that's all. It was a though-provoking reply in which you responded to, and one which I thought you might have had something to say about.

In the mean time I see you are back, and defending your views elsewhere in this thread. Good.

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

If predictions about the world's fresh water supply are correct, we will one day be fighting to protect our resources - you bet! I think we've got a ways to go before we in Canada are repressed, poor and starving. An entirely different ball game I'm afraid - hardly a fair comparison.

[cp fa]

Jason, I think you are wasting time debating with this poster. If you have a look at the history of terrier, as well as the previous handle of outsider, you will see that he/she is not here to learn anything, but merely to stir the pot, with a constant pattern of posting something controversial that cannot be supported by fact, logic or reason, followed by insults and sarcasm, and ending up with putting the other person in the position of having to defend their own character.

Kind of like the Monty Python sketch about arguing for the sake of it, and certainly not worth the amount of patience you must be exercising.

[Guest M. McRae]

The more attention that is paid to a perceived problem, the more important the problem becomes. If Terrier is perceived as a problem then ignore those posts.

Nice thing about an open forum, everyone is free to post their own point of view and others are completely free to ignore those posts that offend or cause them anguish.

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Jennifer, thanks for the 'heads up'... I was away for a while after Canada 3000 died and have obviously missed a few things.

Well, my two days off have now concluded. I have to nap for a couple of hours before I start the first of (3) 1900h-0700h back-to-back shifts in communications. Good job I used to work red-eyes which prepared me for long, busy, over-night shifts. I started with the police service in January and God willing, I hope that I'm never faced with a career loss again.

Hope you are enjoying your retirement!! You did retire if memory serves me correctly, right?

Jason

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Well said, Malcolm. Advice heeded.

[Guest Wilber]

When I read all this stuff I never cease to be amazed by the arrogant assumptions of we citizens of the western world on both sides of this issue.

Watching the news reports from Bagdad, two questions come to mind, both based on the possiblity that the apparant joy shown by Iraqi's over Sadam's downfall is real.

1. When it comes to rebuilding their country will Iraqui's favor those who spent their own treasure and lives (plus a considerable amount of Iraqi treasure and lives) to rid them of Sadam, or the self procalmed "principled" Security Council backers who bent over backwards trying to keep him in place?

Now that the jig is up, many of them such as France and Germany are now scrambling to find new principles.

2. Will either the Coalition or the self proclamed "principled" Security Council backers bother the ask the Iraqi's question number 1?

Based on their track record it wouldn't surprise me if both camps continued to squabble and ignore Iraqi wishes.

[cp fa]

Good memory Jason! Yes, I'm retired, and enjoying it.

So, you've gone from being a flight attendant to police work? There's a career path that probably doesn't happen very often, but I bet you got lots of experience on every flight trying to track down the idiot that decided it was a good idea to smoke in the washroom.

Best of luck to you in your new career.

Cheers, Jennifer

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

LOL! Yes, even in the communications/dispatch section some investigative skills come in handy, particularly when bits of information from the public are phoned in and you gather and communicate the information to officers via radio and computers.

Policing, like a former supervisor of mine says, has an energy of its own. I do enjoy it tremendously but I have loads to learn, and yes even some police college courses to attend which I look forward to with enthusiasm.

The days of 22 off a month are a thing of the past for me, but at least I like what I'm doing and there is a strong hint of job security.

Enjoy your summer you lucky bum, we'll speak again soon I'm sure!

Jason

[Guest flax]

It is because of people like you, that we now have our present government. I will admit that you are entitled to your opinion... no matter how idiotic and misinformed that i think it may be.

Chretien showed a lot of class and principle? Please explain that one. If you attempt to use the "not unless the UN sanctions it" argument (as the Liberals tried) then you are yet again misinformed. The Liberals went to war in Kosovo WITHOUT UN sanctions.... so that argument is groundless. So where is Juan Chretien's principle and class? Didn't the Iraqi people want liberation? Of course they did. Less people have died during this war than in an average 3 months of Saddams rule.

Please explain Juan's principle and class. I really have to hear this argument.

The man refused to help our allies and friends in a just and warranted war simply because he thought it would be politically expedient and would not highlite the uselessness of the military that he has single-handedly dismantled.(no offence to our serving members)

People like you frustrate the hell out of me because i truly believe that you are dense. Sorry to make it personal (honestly) but it's people like yourself who have enabled and inept and incompetent government to hold power. And that affects my life. So if i offend you... too bad... at least i'm not supporting policies and governments that will cause much grief to the average Canadian in the years to come.

[Guest flax]

That is such a load of crap. "If the US is there it would be suicide not to seem to love them" Oh give me a break!!! Oh i suppose the US is a bunch of roving maniacs, shooting and killing anyone who even peacefully opposes them.

You say as a "European I know many people who lived under Nazi occupation. They pretended to be delighted..." Once again that is such garbage. Are you suggesting that you know many people who tore down prominent statues and spat upon them? Yes of course there are those who will always support those in power simply out of fear or some kind of twisted, misguided allegiance. But isn't it obvious that this is a good thing for Iraq? Are you simple blind to that because it was the big bad Americans who liberated them?

Clearly this war was good for Iraqis. In the face of it all you still feel compelled to slag the US. Get over your inferiority complex and admit the Yanks did the correct thing and they did it in the most humane and respectful manner considering the circumstances. You should run for political office with the Liberals... you would fit in quite nicely.

[Guest flax]

I wish i had read your further posts prior to my initial response. It has become obvious to me that you would be leading the parade celebrating the Nazi occupation of your homeland. I'll apologize in advance if i'm wrong but it seems to me that you are condoning the behaviour of people who feel it is expedient and wise to support the victors at all cost.

You are probably the first person to go up and shake Chretien's hand given the opportunity..... simply because he's in power. In spite of the fact that he may be the worst thing to happen to this country in some time.... shake his hand, congratulate his emminence... bask in his glory....

Yes you are entitled to your opinion and i will gladly debate pertinent issues with you. But it just makes me sick realizing that someone who is presumably educated and intelligent can argue or even suggest that the war in Iraq was unwarranted..... or even worse ... that Juan Chretien ( our fearless dictator) has upheld some principled and classly position. I couldn't disagree with you more. Believe me i wish i were wrong. I wouldn't wish someone like Chretien on any nation.

[Guest terrier]

Inferiority complex? No, I definitely don't have one of those. And certainly not when comparing myself to Americans.

I have friends who lived in Belgium under German occupation and had German officers living in their homes for 5 years. And believe me they were very nice to them despite what they privately thought. Yes indeed they made a fuss of them to their faces.

Never heard of the French resistance who during the day were model citizens and at night blew up train tracks?

Your north atlantic experience is very bland compared to other countries where war has been fought in people's back yards. I do think I know a bit more about that than you obviously do.

Not having had a war in your home country makes it pretty easy to write off any loss of life somewhere else where you don't have to look at it too closely.

No I do not admit the Yanks did the right thing. They went there to disarm Sadaam of weapons of mass destruction which have not yet been found. If Sadaam had had them and is as evil as we all know him to be then I believe he would have used them. That was the US' avowed intent but now that's forgotten in regime change, and making sure the oil flows where they want it to go.

The Iraqui army was so pathetically equipped and comanded compared to the coaltion forces it would have been a miracle if they hadn't lost.

The Americans having won this one will be all the more gung ho to tackle the next country they decide is undemocratic (by their definition) and that is dangerous for us all believe it or not.

Try reading Noam Chomsky on the subject of preventive as opposed to pre-emptive
strikes.
____________________________________________

"Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research, he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the current attack on Iraq.V. K.

Ramachandran : Does the present aggression on Iraq represent a continuation of United States' international policy in recent years or a qualitatively new stage in that policy?

Noam Chomsky : It represents a significantly new phase. It is not without precedent, but significantly new nevertheless. This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others. The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States). So, for example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention, because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action .This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack. The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them. The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge. This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future. This is not without precedent, but it is extremely unusual. I shall mention one precedent, just to show how narrow the spectrum is. In 1963, Dean Acheson, who was a much respected elder statesman and senior Adviser of the Kennedy Administration, gave an important talk to the American Society of International Law, in which he justified the U. S. attacks against Cuba. The attack by the Kennedy Administration on Cuba was large-scale international terrorism and economic warfare. The timing was interesting - it was right after the Missile Crisis, when the world was very close to a terminal nuclear war. In his speech, Acheson said that "no legal issue arises when the United States responds to challenges to its position, prestige or authority", or words approximating that. That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine. Although Acheson was an important figure, what he said had not been official government policy in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the future. Such "norms" are established only when a Western power does something, not when others do. That is part of the deep racism of Western culture, going back through centuries of imperialism and so deep that it is unconscious. So I think this war is an important new step, and is intended to be.

Ramachandran :Is it also a new phase in that the U. S. has not been able to carry others with it?

Chomsky : That is not new. In the case of the Vietnam War, for example, the United States did not even try to get international support. Nevertheless, you are right in that this is unusual. This is a case in which the United States was compelled for political reasons to try to force the world to accept its position and was not able to, which is quite unusual. Usually, the world succumbs.

Ramachandran :So does it represent a "failure of diplomacy" or a redefinition of diplomacy itself?

Chomsky : I wouldn't call it diplomacy at all - it's a failure of coercion. Compare it with the first Gulf War. In the first Gulf War, the U.S. coerced the Security Council into accepting its position, although much of the world opposed it. NATO went along, and the one country in the Security Council that did not - Yemen - was immediately and severely punished. In any legal system that you take seriously, coerced judgments are considered invalid, but in the international affairs conducted by the powerful, coerced judgments are fine - they are called diplomacy. What is interesting about this case is that the coercion did not work. There were countries - in fact, most of them - who stubbornly maintained the position of the vast majority of their populations. The most dramatic case is Turkey. Turkey is a vulnerable country, vulnerable to U.S. punishment and inducements. Nevertheless, the new government, I think to everyone's surprise, did maintain the position of about 90 per cent of its population. Turkey is bitterly condemned for that here, just as France and Germany are bitterly condemned because they took the position of the overwhelming majority of their populations. The countries that are praised are countries like Italy and Spain, whose leaders agreed to follow orders from Washington over the opposition of maybe 90 per cent of their populations. That is another new step. I cannot think of another case where hatred and contempt for democracy have so openly been proclaimed, not just by the government, but also by liberal commentators and others. There is now a whole literature trying to explain why France, Germany, the so-called "old Europe", and Turkey and others are trying to undermine the United States. It is inconceivable to the pundits that they are doing so because they take democracy seriously and they think that when the overwhelming majority of a population has an opinion, a government ought to follow it. That is real contempt for democracy, just as what has happened at the United Nations is total contempt for the international system. In fact there are now calls - from The Wall Street Journal, people in Government and others - to disband the United Nations. Fear of the United States around the world is extraordinary. It is so extreme that it is even being discussed in the mainstream media. The cover story of the upcoming issue of Newsweek is about why the world is so afraid of the United States. The Post had a cover story about this a few weeks ago. Of course this is considered to be the world's fault, that there is something wrong with the world with which we have to deal somehow, but also something that has to be recognised."
_____________________________________________

Odd isn't it that the US action is "for democracy" but it has attempted to force other countries to act undemocratically (ie in defiance of the majority of the population in the countries) and threatened them with sanctions if they don't?

We have to agree with them or they won't play with us anymore.

The following also SHOULD be of interest to you:
_____________________________________________
The international polls show that support for the war is higher in the United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or Iran Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war. This has happened, as I said, after September 2002. September 2002 is when the government-media campaign began and also when the mid-term election campaign began. The Bush Administration would have been smashed in the election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront, but it managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues - and people huddle under the umbrella of power.
______________________________________________

Unfortunately in the US you can fool all of the people all of the time.

I am delighted the Iraquis are happy (if indeed they are as happy as we think they are) but I don't believe their happiness is at the top of the list of US motivations in attacking Iraq nor do I believe that this state of happiness could not have been achieved without any bloodshed. We have seen how ineffective the Iraqui army has been. The US invasion is, to use a cliche,the wartime version of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

As for me joining the Liberals - been a member for many a year. What party do you support - the virtually extinct Progressive Conservatives (even the name is an oxymoron) the Canadian Fascit - oops sorry - Alliance Party? or do you have your own version of the Monster Raving Looney party?

I am immensely proud to be Canadian and not American, to have sources of information other than CNN from which to draw conclusions and to have a government which did not cave in to pressure to join a war which did NOT have as its first priority the happiness of the Iraqui people.
If the US had cared about the Iraquis it would not have SUPPORTED Sadaam for as long as it did.

I remember during the Vietnam war hearing Americans being interviewed who thought the US was fighting on behalf of the North.
No, believe me no inferiority complex about being Canadian, none at all.

It actually strikes me that it is you who have the inferiority complex. You who are ashamed to Canadian. Surely there must be some way you can become an ill-informed, paranoid, propaganda swallowing, American who can be proud of how his country can impose American style "democracy" anywhere in the world just by virtue of having a very vibrant arms industry?

[Guest terrier]

Inferiority complex? No, I definitely don't have one of those. And certainly not when comparing myself to Americans.

I have friends who lived in Belgium under German occupation and had German officers living in their homes for 5 years. And believe me they were very nice to them despite what they privately thought. Never heard of the French resistance who during the day were model citizens and at night blew up train tracks?

Your north atlantic experience is very bland compared to other countries where war has been fought in people's back yards. I do think I know a bit more about that than you obviously do.

Not having had a war in your home country makes it pretty easy to write off any loss of life somewhere else where you don't have to look at it too closely.

No I do not admit the Yanks did the right thing. They went there to disarm Sadaam of weapons of mass destruction which have not yet been found. If Sadaam had had them and is as evil as we all know him to be then I believe he would have used them. That was their avowed intent but now that's forgotten in regime change, and making sure the oil flows where they want it to go.

The Iraqui army was so pathetically equipped and comanded compared to the coaltion forces it would have been a miracle if they hadn't lost.

The Americans having won this one will be all the more gung ho to tackle the next country they decide is undemocratic (by their definition) and that is dangerous for us all believe it or not.

Try reading Noam Chomsky on the subject of preventive as opposed to pre-emptive
strikes.
____________________________________________

"Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research, he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the current attack on Iraq.V. K.

Ramachandran : Does the present aggression on Iraq represent a continuation of United States' international policy in recent years or a qualitatively new stage in that policy?

Noam Chomsky : It represents a significantly new phase. It is not without precedent, but significantly new nevertheless. This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others. The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States). So, for example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention, because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action .This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack. The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them. The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge. This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future. This is not without precedent, but it is extremely unusual. I shall mention one precedent, just to show how narrow the spectrum is. In 1963, Dean Acheson, who was a much respected elder statesman and senior Adviser of the Kennedy Administration, gave an important talk to the American Society of International Law, in which he justified the U. S. attacks against Cuba. The attack by the Kennedy Administration on Cuba was large-scale international terrorism and economic warfare. The timing was interesting - it was right after the Missile Crisis, when the world was very close to a terminal nuclear war. In his speech, Acheson said that "no legal issue arises when the United States responds to challenges to its position, prestige or authority", or words approximating that. That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine. Although Acheson was an important figure, what he said had not been official government policy in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the future. Such "norms" are established only when a Western power does something, not when others do. That is part of the deep racism of Western culture, going back through centuries of imperialism and so deep that it is unconscious. So I think this war is an important new step, and is intended to be.

Ramachandran :Is it also a new phase in that the U. S. has not been able to carry others with it?

Chomsky : That is not new. In the case of the Vietnam War, for example, the United States did not even try to get international support. Nevertheless, you are right in that this is unusual. This is a case in which the United States was compelled for political reasons to try to force the world to accept its position and was not able to, which is quite unusual. Usually, the world succumbs.

Ramachandran :So does it represent a "failure of diplomacy" or a redefinition of diplomacy itself?

Chomsky : I wouldn't call it diplomacy at all - it's a failure of coercion. Compare it with the first Gulf War. In the first Gulf War, the U.S. coerced the Security Council into accepting its position, although much of the world opposed it. NATO went along, and the one country in the Security Council that did not - Yemen - was immediately and severely punished. In any legal system that you take seriously, coerced judgments are considered invalid, but in the international affairs conducted by the powerful, coerced judgments are fine - they are called diplomacy. What is interesting about this case is that the coercion did not work. There were countries - in fact, most of them - who stubbornly maintained the position of the vast majority of their populations. The most dramatic case is Turkey. Turkey is a vulnerable country, vulnerable to U.S. punishment and inducements. Nevertheless, the new government, I think to everyone's surprise, did maintain the position of about 90 per cent of its population. Turkey is bitterly condemned for that here, just as France and Germany are bitterly condemned because they took the position of the overwhelming majority of their populations. The countries that are praised are countries like Italy and Spain, whose leaders agreed to follow orders from Washington over the opposition of maybe 90 per cent of their populations. That is another new step. I cannot think of another case where hatred and contempt for democracy have so openly been proclaimed, not just by the government, but also by liberal commentators and others. There is now a whole literature trying to explain why France, Germany, the so-called "old Europe", and Turkey and others are trying to undermine the United States. It is inconceivable to the pundits that they are doing so because they take democracy seriously and they think that when the overwhelming majority of a population has an opinion, a government ought to follow it. That is real contempt for democracy, just as what has happened at the United Nations is total contempt for the international system. In fact there are now calls - from The Wall Street Journal, people in Government and others - to disband the United Nations. Fear of the United States around the world is extraordinary. It is so extreme that it is even being discussed in the mainstream media. The cover story of the upcoming issue of Newsweek is about why the world is so afraid of the United States. The Post had a cover story about this a few weeks ago. Of course this is considered to be the world's fault, that there is something wrong with the world with which we have to deal somehow, but also something that has to be recognised."
_____________________________________________

Odd isn't it that the US action is "for democracy" but it has attempted to force other countries to act undemocratically (ie in defiance of the majority of the population in the countries) and threatened them with sanctions if they don't?

We have to agree with them or they won't play with us anymore.

The following also SHOULD be of interest to you:
_____________________________________________
The international polls show that support for the war is higher in the United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or Iran Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war. This has happened, as I said, after September 2002. September 2002 is when the government-media campaign began and also when the mid-term election campaign began. The Bush Administration would have been smashed in the election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront, but it managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues - and people huddle under the umbrella of power.
______________________________________________

Unfortunately in the US you can fool all of the people all of the time.

I am delighted the Iraquis are happy (if indeed they are as happy as we think they are) but I don't believe their happiness is at the top of the list of US motivations in attacking Iraq nor do I believe that this state of happiness could not have been achieved without any bloodshed. We have seen how ineffective the Iraqui army has been. The US invasion is, to use a cliche,the wartime version of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

As for me joining the Liberals - been a member for many a year. What party do you support - the virtually extinct Progressive Conservatives (even the name is an oxymoron) the Canadian Fascit - oops sorry - Alliance Party? or do you have your own version of the Monster Raving Looney party?

I am immensely proud to be Canadian and not American, to have sources of information other than CNN from which to draw conclusions and to have a government which did not cave in to pressure to join a war which did NOT have as its first priority the happiness of the Iraqui people.
If the US had cared about the Iraquis it would not have SUPPORTED Sadaam for as long as it did.

I remember during the Vietnam war hearing Americans being interviewed who though the US was fighting on behalf of the North.
No, believe me no inferiority complex about being Canadian, none at all.


It seems to me that you have a real inferiority complex about yourself as a Canadian and would love to somehow become a propaganda swallowing, CNN watching American proud of the fact that your country can now with impunity impose its version of democracy any where it chooses because it has a vibrant arms industry. Go for it.

[Guest terrier]

What a load of crap. If you could read AND UNDERSTAND what you are reading you would have realized that I stated that when a country is occupied there is little point in
OVERTLY continuing to resist. You do it COVERTLY. And that is why scenes showing some of the population welcoming foreign troops is not as clear cut an indication of true feeling as it may at first appear. Not a really difficult concept to grasp I wouldn't have thought. And since I wrote it we have had one suicide bomber and several others caught before they managed to detonate themselves so it seems that there is still ccovert oppposition, which is really all I was saying.

As for your first paragraph, get off your high horse you little **bleep**. Doubtless you have lived this side of the pond all your life well away from any real danger. We who were in Europe during the second world war know first hand what happened there and don't need to be patronized by the likes of you. Yes, some publicly welcomed Nazis and then were instrumental in their destruction, risking life and limb to aid the allies from inside without benefit of a uniform giving Geneva convention protection.
Some had to knuckle down and do the best they could to survive. Who the hell are you to judge?

Let me put it simply so you can understand: don't you dare to suggest that I would have been a collaborator with the Nazis. Nor presume to judge how others act under occupation when you have not experienced such a situation yourself.

As for shaking Mr. Chretien's hand I would willingly do it - yes because he is in power and his being in power has allowed him to respect my wishes and in fact those of 58% of the population at the last count in not blindly following the US into the war.

The fact that the US tried to coerce him by threats of economic retaliation to ignore the majority feeling in the country shows how much respect they actually have for democracy.

Yes, he did uphold a principle. We have a United Nations which was set up as a matter of principle. When one country unilaterally withdraws from that body it doesn't mean that that body ceases to exist and as a member Canada had every right not to enter a war not mandated by the UN.

Even the way the US handled that issue indicates how they value democracy. The UN doesn't agree with the US - the UN is no longer valid.

Sorry you're sickened that others have different views to you but heh they do and not just me.

May I just finish by saying how deeply, deeply delighted I am that you couldn't disagree with me more. Were I to find myself in agreement with you it would be grounds for suicide.

As someone who voted for the Liberal government I would also prefer you not to keep referring to Mr. Chretien as a dictator. As you obviously do not understand the Canadian Political System (along with much else I suspect) let me just point out to you that he was elected (and fairly unlike his counterpart to the south).

Frankly the one guy I wouldn't wish on anyone is Dubya.

In fact whenever I think of him I thank heaven fasting that I am Canadian and my country is ruled by Jean Chretien.

Try for green card why doncha

[Guest shibui]

My neighbour's terrier does this, too. He claims it's because of a robust tendancy towards inbreeding.

Is there any precedent for having a contributor to the forum "put down"?

[Guest Rob Assaf]

Frankly, the UN has been going downhill for years. The icing on the cake was when it elected Libya as the human rights commish to the UN, after that debacle, I had no doubt they would be toothless in pursuit of enforcing A 12 YEAR OLD ORDER TO COMPLY WITH INSPECTIONS THEY AGREED TO IN TERMS FOR THEIR SURRENDER FOLLOWING THEIR INVASION AND SUBSEQUENT REMOVAL FROM KUWAIT.

The UN couldn't organize a orgy in a whorehouse with a handfull of credit cards. If you are happy with the thought of hanging around waiting for the next fanatic to blow up a dam or fly another airplane or planes into some buildings, or some other catasrophic event, FINE. Just stay the hell out of the way of the people that want to do something about 1. protecting their asses and 2. in the process, save your ass too.

One thing you have to admit about the U.S.A. By at least having a backbone, it keeps their head from flopping down and inserting up their ass, unlike some countries.

Our big peace rally in Nanaimo attracted 200 people, in a city with a population of 77,000. But they truely represent the feeling of our whole city, don't they? Why is it that the rallies supporting the USA seemed to get lower media play but have as big or bigger crowds? People in suits, mothers with babies, out for their first ever demonstration, no flag burnings, but lots of flag waving, No bongo drums, bolts throught the nose or pink hair, just clean cut looking average joes and janes. The only dissent I saw was the few Fed Ont liberals that strayed outside J.C.'s box to attend the rally got booed. Wonder what their election chances are? Wonder what the Liberal election chances are in general? but I digress.

If J.C. stuck out his hand, I wouldn't shake it unless he was handing me a cheque for the last 12 years worth of income tax I've paid and he was apologizing for his ineptness. Respect is earned, not expected. Politicians especially.

Just my humble opinion, not claiming to represent all of Canada with it.

[Schooner69]

"People like you frustrate the hell out of me because i truly believe that you are dense. Sorry to make it personal (honestly) but it's people like yourself who have enabled and inept and incompetent government to hold power."

COMMENT

When did "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" morph into "I disagree with what you say and I'll kill you if you say it again?"

Come on flax; flex..

[Guest terrier]

Your views and very 'interesting' they are too.

It seems we don't agree. Your version of democracy sounds much like that of Flax. If I didn't vote for someone they have no validity. That's not how the system works. Mr. Chretien is our Prime Minister and was elected as such.

Polls showed a majority in favour of Mr. Chretien's stance on the war. Sorry if that doesn't represent your view but you are only one of several million Canadians and guess what? you won't always get your way.

You'll have your chance to vote at the next election.

I doubt Mr. Chretien will lose much sleep about your not wishing to shake his hand.

It doesn't surprise me that you would want "all" your taxes back. You don't sound at all like a team player.

You approve the US' backbone. Your right.
I disapprove of a backbone that reprsents itself in the following ways":

a) Drops Agent Orange defoliant and napalm on unarmed civilians in Vietnam
Bombs a neutral country Cambodia and then falsifies the mission records to pretend it never happened
c) Supported Sadaam Hussein in the Iraq- Iran war even knowing full well he was using chemical weapons
d)Supported Osama bin Laden and armed him in order to get the Russians out of Afghanistan
e)Knew about the plight of the Afghans for many years but wasn't about to help them until their own agenda required it
f) Constantly sends Haitian refugees back to a repressive regime while allowing Cubans to stay. The political point of Haitian refugess not being one they are in sympathy with
g) Supported Manuel Noriega
h) Replaced a democratic government, that of Senor Allende in Chile with the despotic dictatorship of Pinochet (now known world wide as a war criminal) through the covert operations of the CIA and ITT
i) That despite the obvious feelings of the populations of France, Germany and the UK attempted to coerce their governments to act in opposition to those views (i.e. undemocratically)
j) That has undermined the UN and placed us (the world) in total thrall to a country run by a cowboy and thus essentially removed all choice from the world.
k)invaded Iraq and now leavs the country in anarchy rather than living up to its duty under international law to maintain order
l)Insisted on imposing sanctions on Iraq that a)strengthened Sadaams position and b)caused immense suffering to children and the weak. The problems in Iraq have had as much to do with the sanctions as anything else and many aid agencies have been begging for their repeal for many years.

I was listening today to a news broadcast. Canada has already given $100 million in aid. That's great news and I am very proud of that sort of backbone.

We are all different you see and what makes you ashamed of being Canadian is what makes me very proud to be so.

[Guest terrier]

Oh dear. You poor guy. Arguments fail and you resort to this. Work for Air Canada do you?

[Guest terrier]

While we are taking time to "mock" posters handles. TAke a look at this everyone.

"In observation of the practical aspects of the concept of shibui, it seems generally to involve a lack of clutter and to be concerned with plain backgrounds"

This shibui sure hasn't cluttered up the plain background of his skull with a brain.

What a dink!