INJUSTICE!

April 23, 2003

The americans drop cluster bombs on a Baghdad neighbourhood, killing and still killing dozens of innocent civilians and what leads the news, the Peterson homicides. Western self interest in the extreme! Why are our media agencies not crying out for an explanation?

CBU-4 cluster bombs, low altitude, high speed deployment in order to insure dispersement over a wide area. Some go off right away, some are timed to go off at intervals and some, like land mines , are designed to go off with pressure. How can the use of this weapon on civilian areas be justified? It's absolutely disgusting! I know there are air force and ex-air force guys that read this forum. Please give me an explanation for the use of this kind of weapon, designed to take out airfields, in a civilian neighbourhood.

April 23, 2003

Rwanda - machetes

Vietnam - bamboo

WW II - Kamikaze

WW I - Mustard gas

After 21 centuries you think we

might have it figured out.

The most ironic part is, life goes on.

April 23, 2003

And all for what? Yesterday rumsfield said he does not expect to find weapons of mass destruction. Isn't that why they were therein the 1st place.

Good for chretian for standing his ground.

Sometimes the u.s forgets we're a soverign nation with our own foreign policy.

April 23, 2003

You guys will be delighted to read this then:

U.S. Said to Have Plan to Bomb North Korean Nuclear Facility

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=north_korea

April 23, 2003

Although the American's have always and will always do whatever they want, and fabricate whatever justification they think they need; in retrospect, the events in Iraq of late are a blessing for the people of Iraq. It seems clear that they have lived under brutal tyranny for many years. I don't think the specific event in question is injust, but rather a most tragic accident. They do happen in a conflict and there is no getting around it. I am happy that Saddam is gone.

As far as Cretien standing his ground, I must disagree. Yes we are a sovereign state, but who do you think we would run to if we were being directly threatened? We have relied on the Americans for decades for defense. In my mind that obligation must be reciprocal.

April 23, 2003

Re: WMD

While I remained hopeful, it doesn't look too good to date that they will find anything.

Judgement still reserved.

Iraqis: We Were Told to Destroy Bacteria

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030423/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_scientists&cid=540&ncid=716

April 23, 2003

That is a really scary article (planning to bomb north korea). wwIII.

BSG,you open up an intresting point regarding canada doing what the states wants because we owe them. Its a real slippery slope and one of the things you give up if that's our policy is our sovernty. If we back the states, no matter what, then basically our forign policy decisions are made in washington not ottawa.

If that article is correct and the states wants to bomb north korea, would you still think we should back the states?

intresting topic.

cheers

April 23, 2003

I was surprised to hear rumsfeld say yesterday he doesn't expect to find any (wmd). The states was pretty hard on hans blix for not finding these weapons before the war, at the least they owe the guy an apology.

April 23, 2003

Why did we contribute to the Afghan war and not Iraq? Here are two things to consider:

1. Quebec election - the percentage of people in Quebec who were against the war was much higher than the rest of the country. The liberals did not want to give the separtists anything to grab on to and rally against.

2. Dismal state of our military. Remember Afghanistan and the flak the government took over the state of our equipment including uniforms that were the wrong color. Lets also not forget the fact that we have to beg rides for our troops because goverment short sightedness (sp?) has led to a situation where we are not able to deploy ourselves.

I don't believe for a minute that our Prime Minister or his goverment was taking a nationalistic stand against the war for any idealistic reasons. If they were, our troops that were deployed with US units (yes there were / are a number of them that seem to be conveniently forgotten) would have been recalled prior to the start of the war.

Just my opinion mind you.

April 23, 2003

The Afgan war was a war against a particular group of terrorist, not a war against a country in an attempt to change its government.

Chretian from the very start was pushing for diplomacy. His stance was more time for the weapon inspectors to find all these WMD (which rumsfeld no admits he doesn't expect to find).

Then the states was pushing the 9/11 button saying iqaq was harbouring all these terrorist. give me a break.there's probably more sleeper cells in the states than iraq.

thirdly when all those didn't get support bush wanted he announced he wanted a regime change. Chretian then was outspoken that is wrong.

My opinion is that chretian truly felt it wasn't right to go to war and made a descion not to. I applaued him for standing up to the states demonstrating that canada has its own forign policy and doesn't cave into US pressure.

I also don't feel it was because the people in quebec didn't favour the war (where those poles even out before the war?)and besides its his last term and isn't looking for reelection.

just my opinion

cheers.

April 23, 2003

I guess we will have to disagree on a number of points:

1. The Afghan war WAS about removing a goverment (remember the Taliban?) because they refused to hand over Bin Ladin and his cronies;

2. Public opinion polls regarding Canada's participation were indeed out before the war began;

3. You missed the point of the Quebec election, it had nothing to do with Chretien running again, it was all about the provincial picture;

4. Foreign policy is decided and formulated for any number of reasons, some obvious and others perhaps less so. I for one do not believe that Chretien decided not to participate in Iraq simply because it was wrong. If it was that simple why weren't our troops who did participate in the war recalled before it began?

Cheers

jkavafian · April 23, 2003

Sorry to barge in here but I think your analysis is wrong in that yes we stand by the Americans when they need us and so we did following 9-11. But Iraq had not threatened the US and in fact Iraq has never attacked the US. This was a pre-emptive (not deffensive) strike against another sovereign state and Canada had no moral obligation to support this aggresion. By the way, you think Saddam had a brutal regime? The world will soon find out why Saddam was there in the first place. The brutality in that country is just beginning. A few months ago when I was arguing that the Kurds in Iraq are not Iraqis, I was getting all kinds of insults thrown at me. You will now see what the Kurds are made of. Watch out for a long civil war, courtesy of the U.S.A.

April 23, 2003

I stand corrected on the taliban, you are most correct (hard to think of them as a government),but your right.

I agree there are always poles out, even before the war,but i don't think he made his descion because the majority of quebecers didn't favour the war. Unsure of what you mean by "provincial picture".

regarding the cdn. troops over there, wern't they on an "exchange program" and serving under another military (british?).

i would have to think it would have been easier for chretian politicaly to have gone to war. He was getting the heat from the opposition party and the us.

No matter what he decided there would probably be close to an equal number of people who would disagree.

cheers

cp fa · April 23, 2003

http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1035780820240

April 23, 2003

Regarding the provincial picture- it was the run up to the Quebec election. I agree with you that he didn't make his decision solely on the basis of what Quebecers thought, I'm simply suggesting that this was one consideration.

Canadian troops? You are correct that they are on exchange tours with British and American units. I for one agree with them staying where they are. My point is: if Chretien is so morally opposed to the war and our military will not be used to support the US, why are our troops allowed to be there? It would have been very easy for the government to say our troops will not participate. Had this occurred there would be no Cdn troops there.

I believe the majority of Canadians were / are against the war in Iraq. This was but one factor in determining our foreign policy on the matter. With a majority government who really cares (in government) what the opposition says? If the government (regardless of the party) says the sky is blue, the opposition says no it's red.

A big factor in our decision not to participate was and is IMO our military's inability to contribute in a meaningfull way and quickly. We are stretched too thin trying to be everywhere else. There were no troops left to send.

Cheers

April 23, 2003

Hi Jacques

Freedom is worth fighting for, and freedom is worth dying for. The Americans and their allies risked and in many cases lost their own lives that others might be free.

I hope you are wrong about there being a civil war, but at least now the Kurds and all other Iraqis are allowed freedom of speech and will have a voice in shaping their own futures.

Hussein maintained control with tyranny and fear killing thousands of people yearly. The Americans and their allies stopped that killing while we as Canadians sat safely, and in many cases sanctimoniously, on the sidelines.

There may be a civil war, but without American acton now, there would have been one eventually anyway. The Hussein regime of tyranny and fear would have been brought down some day. Look at the anarchy that existed while the Americans were there. Just think how much worse it would have been if there had been an uprising within Iraq without foreign troops to quell the problems, and there would indoubtedly be a civil war. At least now there is a likelihood that by having foreign troops on Iraqi soil, civil war can be avoided.

Here is a quote from your post Jacques.

>>A few months ago when I was arguing that the Kurds in Iraq are not Iraqis, I was getting all kinds of insults thrown at me. You will now see what the Kurds are made of.<<

How about we take your statement and for Iraq we substitute Canada, and how about for the Kurds we substitute French Canadians or Polish Canadians.

You have in the past argued against what you perceive as racism and bigotry on this forum. I think you just might want to review your own posting in this light.

Greg Robinson

B75/76 · April 23, 2003

Interesting article. He explores the issues more deerly and broadly than most. This action by the U.S. has more affect than the obvious liberation of the Iraqi people and confirmation of the lack of WMD.

April 23, 2003

I have to agree with you, one only has to look to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the resulting turmoil in the eastern European countries, to get at glimpse of what the near future holds in store for Iraq.

The ethnic and cultural battles in the region have been raging for centuries, and have only been held in check by the recently deposed tyrannt.

I think it is somewhat arrogant to think we can impose western morality on middle eastern reality.

April 23, 2003

Have look at the column by Diane Francis of the Financial Post and tell me if you still think Jean Chretian and his liberal government acted only for altuistic reasons.

The address was too long to post, so follow the attached link and do the following.

Click on Diane Francis and then look at "Chrétien's family ties ensnare Martin"

G3

P.S. It is best read on an empty stomach.

April 23, 2003

Have a look at the column by Diane Francis of the Financial Post and tell me if you still think Jean Chretian and his liberal government acted only for altruistic reasons.

The address was too long to post, so follow the attached link and do the following.

Click on Diane Francis and then look at "Chrétien's family ties ensnare Martin"

G3

P.S. It is best read on an empty stomach.

BoomerPete · April 23, 2003

Greg ...

While it is indisputable that Saddam Hussien is a horrible man who has commited inumerable attrocities, it does not necessarily follow that his removal now through American intervention will lead to a long term improvement in the state of affairs in Iraq.

As Jacques alluded to, the action has opened up many divisions within Iraqi society, as well as in surrounding nations that may well result in a bloody free-for-all battle for power and religious dominance.

A great many people will undoubtedly be killed, and that will come in addition to the many thousands of Iraqis who died over the past few weeks as the coalition forces provided them with "freedom". When you add all those killed by coalition forces to date and the many deaths sure to come, current events may well have killed more Iraqis in a short period of time than Saddam would get around to in a good number of years.

So the question to ask would be what are those lives buying, relative to what would happen if the invasion had not taken place?

There are many recent examples of nations throwing off brutal dictatorships and moving towards greater freedom and prosperity (Philippines/Marcos, Romania/Ceausescu, Indonesia/Suharto) without overt outside military intervention. While the process is hardly pretty the results have been relatively positive because the effort to throw off the dictator sprang from a unifying effort from within the society that placed individual goals second to the primary goal of removing the dictator. In other words, the citizens themselves prepared the ground and made the compromises necessary to create a better future.

Conversely, when we look at Iraq, none of this has happened. Liberation, at the cost of many thousands of Iraqi lives has been thrust upon Iraqis without the various ethnic groups having been forced to make the essential compromises that would likely lead to peaceful co-existence. It's not unreasonable to expect that there will be continuing ethnic conflict as each group attempts to gain the upper hand and assert dominance over the future shape of the power structure in Iraq.

Potential results from all of this could range from an assertion of control over Iraq by whichever tribe/sect is most successful in imposing its view as being that of a "majority" to an outright Balkanization of the country into various ethnically dominated pseudo-states. If that happens, then don't count on the oil which will be controlled by one group being used to support the aspirations of the others. Likewise, depending on which ethnic or religious groups control what, it is quite possible that Turkey or Iran will feel compelled to act in support of Turkomen and Shia groups and in opposition to the Kurds and Sunnis thus broadening the scope of the conflict.

The situation in Iraq seems to me ripe, not for emerging democracy, but rather for a long term internal or regional anarchy that will very soon be ignored and forgotten by a public more consumed with the latest Chandra Levy/JonBenet Ramsay/Laci Peterson story. If so, from a coalition perspective what will the massive investment of hundreds of billions of dollars and the loss of US and British servicemen's lives have really achieved, aside from killing Saddam and few of his henchmen?

Now, for a second, just imagine what might have been done to ease suffering from hunger/AIDS/malaria/lack of water with those same hundreds of billions of dollars. If the US was prepared to spend that sort of money in aid of another country (and it has) it's hard not to see this war in Iraq as the greatest folly of all time.

BoomerPete · April 23, 2003