Guest MayFlower1 Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Good morning everyone, Regardless of whether you feel a war against Iraq is justified or not, I hope you will join me in expressing sadness and prayers for the many innocent people who would/will be affected. Think, for a moment, of how you would feel as a child (or even an adult) hearing the roar of fighter jets screaming over your neighbourhood...seeing/hearing the terror of blanket bombs killing friends, neighbours...tanks coming down your streets...into school yards...missles destroying large buildings, telecommunications systems, etc. Man, I find it very disheartening. It is a sad statement that, as advanced as we are, we cannot find a resolution to this situation that doesn't involve killing, destruction and rage. To refer to the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings as "collaterol dammage" is a crime in and of itself... Peter |I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mtws Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Amen Peter. I was going to leave this post at that - but here's my take anyway... 'Pre-emtive strike' just doesn't cut the mustard for me. And going in against the will of the security council scares me. On the one hand supporting their own unanimous resolution (1441) seems to be the right thing to do for the sake of strengthening the UN, even as a force for peace (ironically). Imagine if these strongly worded resolutions, which are at least cursorily effective, became irrelevent? The UN would become the little boy crying wolf in the woods, continually yelling "stop or I'll say stop again". But still, using deadly force at this stage doesn't seem justifyable to me. Without real and transparent proof of a direct an immenent threat - it's just not right. There are peaceful solutions that are still available options. Regardless of what 1441 said would happen, there was no timeline, there still is no timeline resolved. Talking tough might help speed things along but STARTING a war (which this essentially amounts to in my book) CANNOT help, ever. I read somewhere a Chinese proverb - something about, Stopping an Army poised to pounce is like trying to stop a flood of the Yangze. (Food for though?) The 'spin' on CNN last night was just phenomenal though wasn't it? Cheney: "well I'm not saying that France's position has anything to do with their financial dealings wigh Iraq..." Without ever once discussing those 'dealings' on any level -- Just a kernel of thought for us "stupid" citizens to chew on?? (Oh, I see now why France might veto!!!) - NO NO NO NO NO. France's veto is real and legitimate and in place for this very fu--ing reason. Oh man. I gotta stop this. Gotta get to work. See ya. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Peter, I join you in expressing sadness for the people in Iraq whose lives are being shattered by the situation. But my sadness and prayers are not "for the people who would/will be affected" - they are for the people who ARE affected RIGHT NOW by living in Iraq, a country whose people are unfortunately dealing with war-type conditions right now as imposed by its own government. Peachy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MayFlower1 Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Great point peachy. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sally2001 Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 peter, i couldn't agree more. i actually cried last night because i can't believe what the world is coming to. undermining the un and the security council sets a very dangerous precedent. i don't know if any of you saw the piece on CBC's The National a couple of days ago about how many countries were in violation of the security council resolutions, not one of them were threatened by a world war, in fact most were forgotten because they were US allies... just as iraq was in the 80s when the US supplied them with the same chemical weapons that have become a huge issue today. saddam hussein might very well be a dictactor, but the way the us is handling this is downright shocking. btw mtws, congratulations on your interview. it'll be great to see you in as a senior officer in the cf and maybe have a say in these things (?) ok, long term plan i know, but you seem to have a very good balanced perspective on things. hoping for a double france and russia tag team veto today (if the resolution should go that far) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 I think that most people would tend to agree that the Middle East and the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein and Co. But, what pisses me off is the way dubya went about it. He had set a war mandate since 9/11 and only waited until this time to deal with Afghanistan first and to be able to build up his cronies in the region. The past few months at the UN have always been theatrics for the world to see how 'concerned' dubya is for world input. That's a load of BS if you ask me...this whole notion of what's good for america is good for the world is BS as well. My guess it that is that Iran is next....although, they may just target their nuclear facilities since occupying one country and invading another may present logistical problems. How many more years does this idiot have in office? North Korea is probably not on the radar since they have IBCMs that can reach Seattle and about 500 artillery units pointed at the South's capital. They are also building a healthy arsenal of nukes as well in case anyone has forgotten. Ahhhh, OK, I'm Ok now....>: >: >: :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Koggetsu Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 I think I'm going tosay something that will be very disagreeable to many of you and that is that although I think the way Hussein is treating its own people is dispicable, I do think that we need countries and people like this to go up against the will of the US. For me the arrogance of the US is a much more scarier scenario than Iraq, they have basically done everything that they want without regards to the rest of the world, pulling out of the Anti-defensive weapon treaty of the cold war (not sure the exact name), the Kyoto Protocol, attacking Afganastan (sp?), drilling oil in nature reserves in Alaska. I beelive that we do need some countries like to stand up against them or else the prospects of the US dominating the world is much more likely than Saddam using any of its weapons against any of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozymandiasking29 Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Don't forget that Saddam was for a long time a very good puppet in American hands - right until he threatened their oil interests by invading Kuwait. In fact, that same chemical attack on the Kurds that Bush and allies keep bringing up as evidence of Saddam's savagery was originally attributed by the U.S. to Iran, even though there was no shred of evidence to connect Iran to it. What I find even more telling and interesting is an article that was recently published in the NYT (sorry, don't have a link) that detailed how the Americans in fact brought Saddam's Ba'ath party to power in a coup against then-Iraqi president Kassim who was not as pliable as they would have liked. At the time, Saddam's anti-Iran and anti-Communist stance was very favorable to the U.S. How the times do change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UWOMED2005 Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Nice name Ozymandias. Great poem. A lot of people have echoed my thoughts here. I won't shed a tear when a Hussein's government is toppled (the same reaction I had when the Taliban fell,) but a lot of innocent people are going to die in the process. Even worse is the implications of how this went down. . . how is the US going to deal in the future with other smaller countries that get in their way (ie "your softwood lumber is way too cheap, send in the marines") and perhaps more scary, weakening of the UN and a rift (and who knows what direction this will take) between the US and Europe. This particularly scary considering the "us vs. them" mentality many Americans have adopted since Sept 11. The last two years have shown they're taking a much more unilateral approach to their foreign politics. At Hockey games, they were booing the Canadian National Anthem to uplift themselves. In the WWF (ok WWE) they turned many of the Canadians into bad guys, getting tons of cheers. Travelling around Europe the last two summers (before and after Sept 11,) I noticed quite a difference in the tone of the Americans and their relations with their European hosts. Whereas in the summer of 2001 there were jokes about Americans as tourists, in 2002 there was a lot more open hostility. In a washroom at the University of Geneva, I actually saw some pro-Bin Laden grafitti written on the wall. This was in a Western country. Yikes. And it it even affected relations between Canadians and Americans - we're still welcomed over there, and the Americans were starting to notice this. I even had one Californian girl tell me she hated Canadians. . . basically because we were getting better service and not taking any flack for our country's foreign policy. Furthermore, with a voter turnout rates in the 30%? 20%? range, a badly mismanaged education system, a president who did NOT receive a majority of the votes, and a populace willing to accept anything its corporate-elite shovels its way (ie the Cheney example from last night and restaurants renaming "french fries" "freedom fries") you have to wonder if the American democracy is truly democratic anymore. Kind of reminds me of the situation in the latter days of the Roman republic. . . Anyone wonder why noone's pointed out the fact the US has WAY more weapons of Mass Destruction than Iraq? Anthrax, Mustard Gas, Land Mines, Nuclear Weapons. . . it's all in the US arsenal. And they've attacked way more countries over the last ten years than Iraq has. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 Yes! There is a problem when the most powerful person in the world can lose the popular vote of their country and can still make office >: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackbird15 Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 The U.S. actually has a long history of maneuvering (to put it lightly) middle-eastern politics to suit its needs. www.zmag.org/middletimeline.htm Furthermore, an often overlooked aspect of the social and political situation in Iraq is the impact of the U.S.-backed, U.N. imposed sanctions against iraq, which are thought to be a major contributory factor to the current state of abject poverty in Iraq. www.casi.org.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MayFlower1 Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 I am very proud of Chretien...he has made a crystal clear statement that Canada will NOT be supporting the US without UN approval for aggression. Once again, I am proud to be Canadian. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 OK...I cooled down a bit from before. Yeah, I heard the Chretien proclaimation too...on CNN no less. I'm not worried about anti-Canada backlash...most of the world is against the war so they have enough disgruntled allies to worry about. Although, it seems like Canada and the rest of the world will be left with the clean up bill after the US is finished. I'm predicting that the aftermath will be catastrophic: flattened suburbs, burning oil fields, etc. 9/11 was tragic, but, the US is about to do 1000 times as much damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Koggetsu Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Well, it seems that the lives of the Americans who died in 9/11 are worth worth than the thousands of people who have died in the middle-east whether its in Palestine, Afghanastan and will die in Iraq. So now u tell me, who is the bigger terrorist? Bin Ladin or the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cosmo0 Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 9/11 (a hateful criminal act) at least gave them the first ever example to Americans of attack on civilians on their own land - what they have done to the Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis ... Anyway, I see world going toward a split economic world war. European Union, China and India are big enough (!) a market and have enough technological background that if they are made up into rivals by US and UK (and maybe even Canada), the world will be split into two major economic sides. US and UK (and Canada + Spain + Mexico...etc??) may make up the weaker "united states" than the already united states of Europe with economic "friends" of the east. Well that's just one scenario, but bunching up of the world into powerful (economically and militarily?) sides seems an inevitability with the political agreements and disagreements bouncing around in the same circles repeatedly and so predictably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil667 Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 I just heard Dubya's speech on the TV. It looks as though he wants a war. I wonder what will become of the UN now that it has failed to stop US? Just because the US is the most powerful nation in the world doesn't give them the right to be the police for the rest of the world! It is their foreign policy that created such a mess in the middle east in the first place. The UN rules clearly state that the only reason that one nation can start a war is in SELF DEFENSE (ie, if there is an army at the footsteps of their nation). The US is clearly breaking this rule as well. Who is next? Korea? Iran? France? Canada?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 The US will never be able to totally dominate the world because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They may have the most powerful conventional army, but, they also know that Russia, China, or even North Korea could lob a nuke their way if necessary. That is, they would not dare attack a nuclear armed nation. Yay for mutual annihilation :eek The decline of the US will not be brought dn by nuclear weapns or terrorists...they have enough internal problems that will facillititate that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Personally, I find the prospect of nuclear and biological weapons sitting in the hands of a madman like Saddam far scarier than I find the U.S. I guess I'm in the minority, and either nobody agrees with me or those who agree don't feel comfortable posting. I mean, gawd, NOBODY is "pro-war". The question is WHICH war, WHEN it will it happen, and WHO is going to win. The US has an extensive spy agency. I don't. Any information I have has been fed to me through biased media that is surely missing huge chunks of important information. To some degree, I am willing to defer to the expertise of the US government over my own judgment. Iraq was given an ultimatum. Show us you've gotten rid of the weapons, or we'll have to act. They haven't done their part, shouldn't we do something about it? Continuously pushing off deadlines to "avoid war" is not my idea of "doing something about it". I honestly don't know if a US-led war in Iraq is the right course of action. But I'm not vehemently opposed to it - there are valid arguments on both sides. I further recognize that I'm not the right person to be making the decision - I don't have the knowledge, I don't have the experience, I don't have the perspective. Frankly, I find it confusing when I read people who are so adamantly in condemnation (or support) of the US position - do you really think you have enough information to make an informed decision? Do you really think it's that simple? "War = Bad" under all conditions? There's never a lesser-of-evils argument? Phil, you said "The UN rules clearly state that the only reason that one nation can start a war is in SELF DEFENSE (ie, if there is an army at the footsteps of their nation). The US is clearly breaking this rule as well. Who is next? Korea? Iran? France? Canada?..... " Well, the UN may certainly say this. I don't know. But I definitely disagree with the sentiment - war is not a black-and-white thing. Who is to say when "conflict" changes over into "war"? Who is to say that internal strife is quantitatively different from involving other nations? And what, human-rights violations are NEVER a good enough reason to enter a war? I disagree. So, I bet, would my grandmother, whose parents and siblings were all murdered during WWII. Perhaps earlier US intervention could have changed things then, and perhaps that's what we're seeing now. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Koggetsu Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 I totally respect your opinons on this. But i think the problem about this lesser of 2 evil thing is that most people have heard about all the "evil" things that iraq has done, but how many people have heard all the "evil" things that US has done to others? Its never really publicized as much because the US is so powerful and no one dares to criticize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 I'm upset because: The US has never had any intentions of a peaceful resolution. The entire last few months at the UN have been for show and to give them time to build up troops in the region. The US is (and has always been) acting in its own self interest without regard for anyone else's interest. They have made this loud and crystal clear. And, they wonder why people hate Americans! With this war THEY are creating a new generation of terrorists...exactly what Bin Laden wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Thanks, Koggetsu. I too appreciate that we've been able to keep a quite civil discussion going here I don't think I'd agree with the fact that noone dares criticize the US, though! The newspapers and world opinion (not to mention most of the posts so far in this discussion) over the last few days, weeks, months seems to be pretty unanimously criticizing the US, after all. I can't think of ANY decision that the US makes that isn't criticized by SOMEONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Shutterbug, The US has never had any intentions of a peaceful resolution. The entire last few months at the UN have been for show and to give them time to build up troops in the region. How do you know? What leads you to say this? You think that if a peaceful resolution had been reached, the US would have said "Hey, we're gonna bomb you guys anyways. We like war. We want our soldiers to die. War is cool"? Do you think that everybody involved in the Bush administration is completely nuts? Because I, personally, don't know any reasonable people who have that attitude, and I find it tremendously hard to believe that the US managed to build a government that has no reasonable people involved. The US is (and has always been) acting in its own self interest without regard for anyone else's interest. They have made this loud and crystal clear. And, they wonder why people hate Americans! With this war THEY are creating a new generation of terrorists...exactly what Bin Laden wanted. First, I don't have any problem with the US acting in its own self-interest (to a reasonable degree. It is obviously unacceptable to start war for cheaper oil - I don't happen to believe that that's the motivation here, however). But that's what governments do. They act in their own self-interest. Why shouldn't they? Second, I really don't get the "new generation of terrorists" thing. It's not like they just jumped into Iraq, said "hey, we don't like you, we're going to blow up your buildings." My understanding is that a war is waged for concrete reasons - to remove weapons, to remove a corrupt and dangerous leader, whatever. You don't walk in and shoot innocent people _for its own sake_ - that's not war, it's terrorism. The difference to me is that the US is not threatening Iraq with a war ("You do what we say, or we're going to make you very, very unhappy") they're giving it as a possible means to an end ("You won't destroy your weapons? Fine then. We'll do it for you.") Very different in my books. Disagree with the notion of war all you want - but it's just not the same as killing people to create fear. Again, I really don't mean to say that having a war is the right course of action. As I said above, I just don't know. I just don't think it's that simple, and I choose to give the US government the benefit of the doubt as to being composed primarily of individuals who are reasonably smart and reasonably ethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sally2001 Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 peachy, i disagree with you. the major problem with this war is that it is a unilateral decision made by a single government. why was the resolution not even put to a vote today? because it would not have passed and even IF it slid by, it was sure to be vetoed. so it was withdrawn. the UN is an international body. undermining the UN now is just the start of making it irrelevant - or rather, irrelevant when it doesn't serve the purpose of the US. do you really believe this war is justified? iraq has but a small percentage of whatever weapons capability it had in the last war. the US is not interested in iraq's disarmament nearly as much as it is in a regime change - these are not my words, but the words of the world leaders. dr blix was in the midst of preparing another report. he recently estimated that months were needed to complete the process - not weeks, not years. since when was there a self-imposed deadline on iraq to disarm? that was the crux of the resolution and the main reason for the threat of veto - the US had long insisted "march 17" and france had requested at least one more month. war in iraq now would create immense instability in the middle east. the arabs are not a people who are going to take easily to a us-led invasion and installation of a puppet regime to replace saddam hussein. herein lies the main difference between "us" and "them". "They" are perfectly willing to die for their honour, their land and for their cause, whereas "we" would rather coax them into surrender and false promises of safety in order to spare our own lives. i leave you with a final thought - where is the billions in aid promised to hamid karzai to restructure afghanistan? the man is still crying out to the international community to live up to to their committment. i'm sorry, i don't buy your argument of helping the iraqi people any more than the international community did bush's argument for the necessity of an imminent war. i hear you peter, i am indeed proud to be canadian and proud of jean chretien. peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Hey Sally, You make convincing points and I agree with you on many of them. No, I definitely do NOT "really believe a war is justified". But I also don't believe that a war is necessarily UNjustified. I don't know enough to have a truly informed opinion. I mostly wanted to comment about arguments of the form "all war is bad" or "we should stay out of other people's problems" or "the US is evil" being thrown around as reasons for NOT entering war. Peachy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bcdentalgirl Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 I don't really have anything to add other than to also express my anxiety over what is about to happen. This really puts our lives into perspective. MCATS, DATS, adcoms, GPAs...boy, are we ever LUCKY to have such problems! Praying, BCdentalgirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.