I know I am going to regret this post but....

[Don Hudson]

Malcolm;

The matter is truly complex but the underlying principles are not:

Use whatever force is necessary to ensure a "favourable" business/investment climate that protects US interests abroad. Force, like terrorism is used because it works, not because of any WMD, wild-eyed leaders going amok etc etc. Hussein as is publicly known, was a client leader and a friend of the US for many years until he made the mistake of invading Kuwait, (a US client state). Manuel Noriega..same. And Salvadore Allende was not the first leader to be "ousted" and murdered by the CIA, the US implanting its own investment/business-friendly leader, Pinochet.

Its not the business or investment goals that are objectionable but the methods by which they're accomplished. The public record is clear and detailed.

No one here has responded with a reasonable scenario re N.Korea, the issues being, not WMDs but outright, deliverable nuclear weapons! The US stayed away. All has grown quiet. Why?

The US is a master at creating public fear. The Vietnam war was fought over fear...the "red scare". Anyone who recalls McArthy will know how powerful and, because fear is largely irrationally based, how manipulative such fear can be. WMD's was a stage-managed fear-mongering action by the US and Tony Blair fell right in line as Great Britain has always done, especially after Reagan-Thatcher. That both the Britons and most MPs at Westminster vehemently disagreed with their PM is a testimony to their Parliamentary freedoms, (which we do not have in Canada), but it is also a testimony to the ability to set aside blind allegiances in favour of the truth: there were no WMDs and never were. Only the MPs saw that but Blair could not risk losing favour with the US.

France and Germany are peculiar cases with their own agendas not allied with the reasons Canada (correctly) removed itself from the unilateral actions of the US and Britain.

The US is our greatest friend, of that there is no doubt. We are each other's greatest trading partners. It is not only economics and business which drives the world, although the only metaphor available for public discussion about social issues is the business one, so we know where that ends up. But if the US wanted our resources, (oil, water, uranium etc) badly enough, it will take them, by force should it be necessary.

The languid, lap-dog press in the US generally does not "see" their country's government and foreign policies for what they are but overseas media certainly do. There are exceptions in the Wall Street Journal, but even dissent there is "institutionalized" in the sense that such "cantankerous" disagreements provides sufficient illusion of true dissent.

The reverse of the old saying is actually more accurate these days:

"I'll see it when I believe it..."

Don

[Guest Pull Up]

Steam Driven,

The point is, the US garnered the support of it's own people, and the support of other countries by using the WMD card. You can be sure this was done after numerous polls were taken to see what the popular support would be for various reasons to invade. They didn't say they would invade for oil, aggression, Iraq's (supposed) support of the Taliban and AlQeda, or any other reason. They invaded under the guise of the Iraqi regimes stores and development of WMD's. Whether they should have invaded for any of these other reasons is moot. They got the American people, and much of the rest of the worlds support by lying about the threat of Iraqs ability, and intent, to use their vast stores of WMD's, period.

[Don Hudson]

Jacques;

The book, "Unholy Wars" by John Cooley is among many which discusses Middle East history, bringing in long-standing US policy. It is an excellent, well-grounded reference without polemics, agendas or ideologies.

In contrast with the daily dose of fear-mongering by CNN and others, this book truly provides reason to be concerned through understanding, not through irrational, uninformed prejudices.

I don't like Jean Chretien or his party one bit, (and am even more concerned about the King-in-waiting), but when he gently raised the middle digit of his hand and pointed southwards, it was a moment to celebrate my country's foreign policy. The UN did not and never would sanction a US "pre-emptive" attack because there was nothing to pre-empt. It was an unjustified invasion over the most transparent and insulting (not to say dangerous) of pretences, (which we will see more of...), and the outcomes, as we knew they would, are proving that view to be more correct every day that the US stays in Iraq.

Other books are:

"Through Our Enemies Eyes",

"Bin Laden" by Yossef Bodansky (written before 9/11),

"Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict", by Norman G. Findelstein 2nd ed.,

"Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World", by Mark Curtis,

"The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity", by Tariq Ali

"Rogue State", by William Blum

"America Rules" by Tom Hanahoe

but the best was Unholy Wars.

regards,

Don

[Moon The Loon]

Hence my attempts at raising consciousness about Over Reaction to the lot in Canada arrested as an Al Quaida cell. Innuendo, unsubstantiated suspicion and knee-jerk reaction all come to mind.

Just like if you were 5th generation Japanese in BC in 1942.

[Moon The Loon]

Sounds like you have embraced the Full Monty of GW's information machinery.

Unbridled support with no accounting for the negative aspects rarely fosters an objective look at anything.

That goes for airline employees arguing about whose company is better too!

[zipped]

Me too G.U. thanks for the straight talk. We as Cdn's should be more gratefull to our southern neighbours. They are far from perfent but I will take them over most of the world as neighbours. Too many bleeding heart Liberals in this country.

[jkavafian]

Don,

You are right and there are other books on the Middle East as well especially the memoir of Winston Churchill himself who drew the borders of modern day Iraq. From the news reporting that I saw and interviews I could piece together a theory of why the US attacked Iraq.

After Kuwait was liberated, Saudi Arabia feared that Saddam would one day attck it because Saudi Arabia let its bases be used by the American air force. So the US stationed some 5,000 troops in Saudi Arabia attheir request. This American presence was hurting the Saudi King as well as America by Islamic extremists. Hence the attack on the US by al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia and the US agreed that it's best for US troops to leave Saudi Arabia but the Saudis were affraid of a Saddam attack so presumably they asked the US to get rid of Saddam before leaving Saudi Arabia. So removing Saddam was a part of the US strategy to leave Saudi Arabia and with their departure, extremists would no longer have to blame the US "occupation" of their country and so terrorism would be reduced.

I know it sounds a bit like a long roundabout to solve a problem but all the statements I heard from US officials in interviews points to this theory. The WMD story was made up to make the attack sellable to the general public. This is just my summation.

I have never been more proud of my country than when Chretien told Bush to take a hike.

[Guest Gino Under]

The difference is, Saddam was the bully, the US merely trying to intervene when no one in the world had the bee alls.

[Guest Gino Under]

I couldn't agree. (If it even matters)

Go spend some time in Quetta Pakistan if you really want to hear propaganda.

Poverty, ignorance and religion can be a helluva motivator when it comes time to attacking the US.

You might want reconsider your NIMBY attitude.

[Guest M. McRae]

Re "I have never been more proud of my country than when Chretien told Bush to take a hike. "

Don't like liberals but, he made the right call at a difficult time and for the right reasons. ie. doubt re WOMD and not a lack of desire to support the US only a def. lack of desire to BLINDLY support the US.

[Guest Gino Under]

Moon

In sixteen months George Dubya is likely going to be history.

In sixteen months Iraq will still be a festering mess. UN involvement and Peacekeeping troops will not change the prognosis.

I just happen to believe that following the events of 9/11, all bets are off.

The Iraqis (the UN and indeed the world) had years of begging and pleading to comply with a simple request. Prove you do not have or that you do have WMD.

NOT please?

NOT pretty please?

NOT pretty please with sugar on it?

At some point the game is over.

We are lucky living in Canada that we can even debate this issue.

I do not think GWB is the brightest bulb in the house. I do think any Bible thumping Southern Baptist is every bit as scary as the Mullahs thumping the Koran and stirring the masses at Friday prayer.

One of the two should be more scarier to you (and others) than the other. But that's for you to decide. Isn't it?

It's a new world my friend and it's time people put the niceties away and got down to some clear thinking about the source of the 9/11 attacks and got a helluva lot more suspicious than you've ever been before about what the heck is right and not necessarily WHO is right.

If you want to pick issues, how could the UN not do something about the genocide in Africa? How many opportunities have they had (in decades) to react?

Some would have us believe the Yanks are interfering in Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. While true as the accusations may be, are we to believe that Lebanon doesn't interfere beyond it's borders?

That Iran doesn't interfere beyond it's borders? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Yemen? Pakistan?

War makes no sense. Invasion is not an investment. But there are times when it takes tanks and guns to stop the craziness OR AT LEAST TRY to stop it.

[Guest Gino Under]

Jake

What weapons did Sad Man use that were American?

The Boeing 747s, 27s, or 37s???

Just curious.

What gas did he use on the Northern Kurds?

What weapons did he use on the Marshland Arabs in the south?

He was a dictator not a rights activist.

Get serious.

[Guest Gino Under]

Iraqi Oil is for the Iraqis. It's revenue is for their future and rebuilding their country. It has to be protected. Do you think Canadian troops wouldn't be tasked with the same duty??

Please.

[Guest Gino Under]

Steam Driven

You're on the right track.

But, OIL is not the issue. The US gets it's oil from itself, Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico. The rest of it's requirement comes from Saudi Arabia. (NOT Iraq)

source: OPEC

Food and Medicine for Oil is how the UN controlled the flow of Oil in exchange for Money. BTW, in US Dollars. The base currency for the Middle East and most of the planet.

All things in this world using American Dollars HAS TO go through the New York Banking system.

Ever notice how many things in your day to day life are petroleum based??? Still think Oil is insignificant? I'd say oil is worth protecting for more than some of the simplistic reasons I've read in this thread.

How many Japanese products do we own that are petroleum based?

Japan gets 85% of it's petroleum requirement (as a nation) from the Middle East. Europe is second. Neither regions were involved in this 'invasion' except the Brits.

Contrary to what many have said about Tony Blair, I find him eloquent, educated and very common sensed in his approach to all of this. IMHO

[Guest Gino Under]

My friend....DON'T YOU KID YOURSELF!

[Guest Gino Under]

99%, which doesn't include the silent majority.

So, when did the Brits put Iraq together?

When did the Brits carve out Southwestern Iraq and give it to al Sabbah????

One thing's for sure jk....you're right! Western style democracy will never work there.

But the Iraqi vision of democracy will if some great Uncle can keep those different sects apart long enough to see the light.

[Guest Gino Under]

JK

I have some difficulties with your theory. Although, I certainly think it's a good one.

How about this?

The rich Gulf states employ a thug. No. Let's call him an evil dictator to stave off islamic fundamentalism brewing in Persia.

Why not fund an 8 year war to ensure the Persians are too busy with the evil dictator to interfere locally and stir the fundamentalist pot.

Unfortunately, the 8 year war ends and the evil dictator finds his economy in ruins so he asks his Gulf State buddies to ante up in US bucks so he can get his country out of the toilet.

Unfortunately, co-operation is little to non existent from this lot.

So, the Evil Dictator decides he's going to take back something of his that was given out decades before by a foreign power. This patch of desert happens to have a sizeable quantity of oil. This of course means lots of US bucks and the potential for Bad Times within the GCC.

Our Evil Dictator unfortunately makes a mistake in his 'analysis' as to who his friends are and finds some 'merican White Knight raining on his parade in the name of Freedom and Democracy. (Let's face it, all of those countries over there are dictatorships, so why use that line?)

Problem is, the UN mandate was simply to kick the Evil Dictator out and give back the patch of desert to it's rightful owner.

Wait a minute? Rightful owner? Isn't that Iraq?

Now I'm all messed up.

Having a keen interest as to who controls OIL is certainly America's interest. I'd even be bold enough to say it's everyone's interest. So to say "it's all about oil" is merely stating the obvious. It's these WMD that aren't as obvious and the onus to prove, reveal, or present any WMD lies squarely with Iraq NOT with the US.

[Guest Gino Under]

Upper Deck

No sir.

My formation of attitude on this matter comes from two things.

1) Living in the Middle East. Eating, Sleeping, Drinking, learning the language, studying the Koran and Listening to the locals.

and...

2) the events of Sept 11th

[Guest Gino Under]

[Guest Gino Under]

While I thank you for your comments, I wouldn't want to offend the sensitivities of our Canadian Mozaic, and the social decadence that errodes our Canadian values from within.

But that's just the cynic in me.

[Guest M. McRae]

(Y) That is another good thing about living in Canada, open debate. That is why Canadians fought in WW1, WW2, Korea etc., etc., etc.

rgds Malcolm

[Don Hudson]

Jacques;

No, not a long, roundabout way to solve a problem at all...makes a lot of sense and has many supporting authors who have also made a study of the Middle East, esp Saudi and the US "occupation" of Riyadh during the first Gulf War. I think your theory on bin Laden is correct and again it is backed up by history. Regardless of our opinions of what the US is and isn't, by their presence, the US "fouled" sacred ground and bin Laden found a home for his ideas. These are notions which are familiar to anyone who has done reading in this area, (pg 31-32, "bin Laden; Bodansky).

Its a good theory, Jacques and one which can further discussion.

On Chretien's "moment", I could not agree more. It was a courageous and bold move from a normally cautious, quiet nation.

Don

[UpperDeck]

You appear to be an absolutist; you care not at all about facts and seemingly rely upon propaganda that has been shown to be false. Don provided a little relevant history and you blew by that as quickly as one hopes Fabian passes Bermuda. God protect us from the righteous; they can do no wrong.

[UpperDeck]

Funny...I too spent time in the middle east and have some passing familiarity with the Koran but what most impressed me was the people I met and in whose homes I shared meals. Those people that I met had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. Perhaps you met a different group of people?

[BoomerPete]

>>>The Iraqis (the UN and indeed the world) had years of begging and pleading to comply with a simple request. Prove you do not have or that you do have WMD.<<<

Just curious, how do you prove a negative to someone who has already decided that nothing you say can be trusted?

The whole thing devolves into something akin to the old saw about the prosecutor's question of "Sir, when did you stop beating your significant other?"

In the instance of Iraq, the U.S. chose to take on the role of prosecutor when it decided on unilateral action without U.N. sanction. And, like any prosecutor, it has the responsibility to deliver the proof of guilt in order to justify the "conviction".

So far, it has done so miserably poorly in this regard that even most people who supported the war acknowledge that the pretence used, that Iraq had immediately threatening WMD, lies somewhere between unprovable and patently false.

>>>are we to believe that Lebanon doesn't interfere beyond it's borders?

That Iran doesn't interfere beyond it's borders? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Yemen? Pakistan?<<<

So, having failed to establish the proof necessary to justify the action taken, now you want to backslide into, "Well, everyone else is doing it, why not the U.S.?" Essentially, you've just stated that U.S. foreign policy need not be guided by any higher degree of integrity than you perceive as emanating from some of the least responsible nations on the face of the planet. It's also ironic in that three of the six nations you cited are deemed to be allies in the War on Terror. How can we condemn any other nation's extra-terratorial interventions if our actions are held to no higher a standard?

>>>>War makes no sense. ... But there are times when it takes tanks and guns to stop the craziness OR AT LEAST TRY to stop it.<<<

Come on, war has to "make sense" if one is going to deliberately engage in it as a premeditated act, or are we now no longer accountable even to ourselves for our own actions? Presumably you must believe that war does make sense when another nation makes it unambiguously clear that they have the capacity and the intention to attack you and do you and your nation great harm. Otherwise, of course, there's simply no reason available to justify invading Iraq.

The problem with using the above as a rationale for war is that in this instance it would only absolve the Iraqis, not the U.S. We're still lacking any proof that Saddam personally or the Iraqi nation as a whole had either the capacity or intent to immediately threaten any nation, let alone the U.S.

Like it or not, as the proponents of Justice and Freedom the U.S. and all "Western Democracies" are stuck with the need to provide proof of the necessity of our actions when we chose to indulge in something as deadly and devisive as a pre-emptive war. In the case of Iraq, so far there has been no proof provided, only rhetoric that espouses our ideals without actually demonstrating them.

The inherent and fundamental flaw in accepting rhetoric in place of fact as the justification for war is that when we do so it is as if we have told the world that we deem that the best way to defend our system of beliefs is to ignore them when they become inconvenient, especially when that inconvenience is borne by others.

Don't think this little lapse hasn't been noticed. It has, and it has caused an inestimable loss to the credibility of the U.S. among people of all stripes the world over. Far from stopping the craziness that threatens the world, this war has only strengthened those who threaten us, weakened those who would support us and ensured that the craziness will grow and become an even greater danger to everyone than it already is.

Pete