Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Good News For Most Canadians
Captain,Simmonds
Trainee trainee
in Zocalo v2.0
We are not going to War:):)
More Info on why:
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/17/chretieniraq030317[/url]
More Info on why:
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/17/chretieniraq030317[/url]
Comments
I didn't know that Poland is sending troops as well. Not good.
- PJH
In a sense there is backing from the UN based upon that resolution alone. If the UN cannot deliver on it's declarations, then others will have to fill the breach.
I don't want war, but I don't wish to see the world waste one more minute pacifying that prick who has had 12 years to get his shit together.
Canada is totaly within their right to not participate, and I respect their decision, but to wait for more resolutions is rediculous at this point.
"Serious consequences" is not a synonym for "war."
Now our Fearful Leader has decided to invade Iraq in 48 hours if Saddam Hussein does not go into exile.
No more trying for disarmament. No more working with the rest of the world. No more sense, either.
We now go from defender of the free world to agressor state. We attack a country with a population which is more than 50% age 16 or under. We will use the same depleted uranium munitions we used last time (the leukemia rate in souther Iraq is now 100-150% higher now) and irradiate many more innocent civilians.
Why are we doing this? Iran has a much more advanced nuclear program. North Korea has working nuclear weapons now. Iraq cannot use any of the WMDs it may or may not have because the enitre world has kept a close eye on them for the last 12 years.
I am disgusted by the moron masquerading as a leader. I am appalled by the chickenhawks who rush to war after dodging out their own military service. I am terrified by the refusal of our government to listen to the millions upon millions of american citizens who have demonstrated opposition to this unjustified preemptive war.
The Failure of the UN: The UN has failed in most of its situations. Take for example Bosnia, Rwanda, and all the others. The unfortunate thing about the UN is that it is unwilling to take a stand and do its job. I really believe that the French have done more harm to the chances of peace by saying they will veto ANY ultimatum to Iraq than we ever could have done. Now the US is forced to go in alone. And you wait- in a couple months we will be discussing how bad the situation was in Iraq (how many bad things were going on, how many weapons of mass distruction he had, ect).
My opinion is that if after 12 years and 12 different resolutions, if Sadamm cant disarm we dont need to give him any more time. Would I go fight in this war? Yes. Any war that I am willing to support I would be willing to die in. I am willing to die so that this crazy bastard can not kill one more innocent person (like the gassing of the Kurds) or come back five years down the road and deliever a little present to American civilians- a nice bioweapons strike or VX gas attack. So, I support war. Sadamm has consistatly proven that is how he wants things to end. Give him another month, year, ten years, and he will still not disarm.
Sorry, its getting late and I am tired. :) Ill try and redo this tommorow (when I can make more sence).
makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inisde...
[url]http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3[/url]
[B]Resolution 1441 said that Iraq would be subject to "serious consequences" if it were not to cooperate fully with inspections and disarmament.
"Serious consequences" is not a synonym for "war."
[/B][/QUOTE]
Nor was there ever given any timeframe for the disarmament.
And as we know Iraq WAS destroying their missiles, co-operating and giving documents more and more when time passed. Now all of a sudden it's not enough anymore? Now all of a sudden after 12 years when Iraq finally did co-operate the US suddenly has a great rush to attack and complitely ignore all the co-operation Iraq has done lately, why!???
I think Iraq was actually co-operating too well and it scared Bush that he might lose even the smallest reason to attack Iraq, so he had to rush it so that he can have his war, which he has clearly decided to have a long time ago already, because he wants to get rid of Saddam and that way safe the access to their oilfields.
Iraq is now doing what the international community has demanded from it, but in fact USA itself is in turn complitely ignoring the international community and attacking Iraq even though majority of the countries are against the war and think that everything was going well enough with Iraq currently. So which country was the dangerous one again? Iraq did not threat any other country before USA started to threat them first. Nor did N-Korea.
- PJH
There's a good half million troops that are suddenly stationed around them.
[B]You're forgetting why they're suddenly "cooperating"
There's a good half million troops that are suddenly stationed around them. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's insignificant. They did co-operate.
Besides there's not half million troops. Barely half of that.
- PJH
but let me put it this way, would *YOU* trust someone who only started cooperating once they had a gun pointed at their head ?
- PJH
[B]No I wouldn't, but it was not the matter of a trust. Iraq was co-operating. They were destroying the missiles under the supervision of a UN, the UN had access to anywhere they wanted and Iraq was giving documents. Even though there was still room and demand for better co-operation they did co-operate better over time and the inspections should've let to continue as long time as the UN inspectors themselves thought they needed to get their job done.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
They were only doing it because Saddam wants to stay in power. Look at his past history, he even EXPELLED the inspectors once because he didn't agree.
He's gassed his own citizens. Untold thousands have died under him for no reason. The guy has got to go. I may not like how we have gotten there, but at least we're trying to do the right thing. He's been hiding stuff and pulling the "wool" over the inspector's eyes for years.
So, we continue on for 3, 6, 9 more months? What is that going to do? He's just going to move the stuff around again and again and again.
I'll repeat again, I don't really like how we got to this point, but the dictactor must go. I'd rather world opinion not favor us after liberating Iraq, then world opinion hating us for not doing anything. That's how it is in the real world.
So, we continue on for 3, 6, 9 more months? What is that going to do? He's just going to move the stuff around again and again and again.
...... [/B][/QUOTE]
That's ASSUMING.
No no no, in the REAL world the US is trying to justify their wrong actions with "right" reasons (like "liberating" Iraq and destroying their POSSIBLE WMD's, which US itself has more than any other country in the world!) and trying to only safe their oil sources and adjust the area to their liking. Plus Bush & partners seem to have a personal vendetta against Saddam as well.
Saddam did a gas attack back then and attacked Kuwait, but he was fought out of Kuwait, so that part is history and it was a different situation complitely. Back then Iraq actually attacked another country. They have not attacked or threatened anyone after that, expect after when US threatened Iraq first with a war. So there should be no reason to attack Iraq again. The WMD part like said was under inspection and going fine in most of the world's opinion.
This war is wrong.
- PJH
That's ASSUMING.
[/QUOTE]
And I suppose Assuming he won't follow the same behaviour he has been following for the past 12 years (and beyond) is MUCH safer.
[quote]
No no no, in the REAL world the US is trying to justify their wrong actions with "right" reasons (like "liberating" Iraq and destroying their POSSIBLE WMD's, which US itself has more than any other country in the world!)[/quote]
AHMAGAWD ! A country that's proven itself responsible in the usage of such weapons is trying to keep them away from someone who'll likely use it on their friendly nextdoor "zionist" state, HOW INCREDIBLY ILLOGICAL.
it's like... a cop taking a baretta away from a schoolyard punk !
[quote]....and trying to only safe their oil sources and adjust the area to their liking.[/quote]
Oil my ass, most of the oil america gets if from Venezuela, canada and Russia, with saudi allocating for about a fift of the total supply. the US' oil needs are quite well met at the moment. Hell, the ones who *DO* want the oil are the ones who are defending Iraq.
[quote]
Plus Bush & partners seem to have a personal vendetta against Saddam as well.[/quote]
...as does most of the Middle East
[quote]Saddam did a gas attack back then and attacked Kuwait, but he was fought out of Kuwait, so that part is history and it was a different situation complitely.[/quote]
Yes, I'm sure Saddam's apologized to the Kuwaitis, Kurds, and Iranians about all that slaughter and crap. Hell, he and the Ayatollah are probably sharing a spot of tea right now.
I mean, it must be a complete fallacy to think that he's completely out of his "murderous expansionist" stage...
[quote]Back then Iraq actually attacked another country. They have not attacked or threatened anyone after that, expect after when US threatened Iraq first with a war.[/quote]
I guess waiting for someone to strike first isa good idea...
[quote]So there should be no reason to attack Iraq again.[/quote]
There has been for the past 12 years, the US has been showing *RESTRAINT* for chrissakes.
[quote] The WMD part like said was under inspection and going fine in most of the world's opinion.
[/quote]
You mean like such.... outspoken examples as France, who Helped Iraq build nuclear facilities in the 80s, and currently still has major interests in Iraq's oil supplies (Guess who finances what they currently have). Or Russia, who's predecessor government has spent the years leading up to the gulf war arming the hell out of Saddam's forces ?
[quote]
this war is wrong.
[/quote]
Yes it may be, but sometime there's very little choice
[Fine, fixed :p]
[B]Yes it is, but sometime there's very little choice [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm going to have to beat you for this one (reference the actual quote you used). PJH said "This war is wrong", and you chopped it to "war is wrong". Bad. Bad bad bad. No taking half sentences out of context. :)
I'm not discussing your opinion on war here, by the way.
[B]If the UN cannot deliver on it's declarations, then others will have to fill the breach.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The USA and Israel are the states which are in conflict with the most UN resolutions.
As far as I remember, 180 of 191 UN member states voiced that they are against a war against Iraq.
The USA, in fear that the answer will be "No", steps back from issuing a second resolution to the Security Council which could allow them to act as if this war would be justifiable. It is not, it is an aggression and should be punished.
[B]Resolution 1441 said that Iraq would be subject to "serious consequences" if it were not to cooperate fully with inspections and disarmament.
"Serious consequences" is not a synonym for "war."
. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy, considering several other UN resoultions and other diplomatic communications in the past 100 years, Id say it was.
Resolution 1441, past resolutions along with the agreement ending the 1991 gulf war, which was in essance a armistace agreement have all been violated DO give a sound foundation for the resumption of hostilities.
Or at least thats what my cranky International law prof said.
[B]The USA and Israel are the states which are in conflict with the most UN resolutions.
As far as I remember, 180 of 191 UN member states voiced that they are against a war against Iraq.
The USA, in fear that the answer will be "No", steps back from issuing a second resolution to the Security Council which could allow them to act as if this war would be justifiable. It is not, it is an aggression and should be punished. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy if you would READ the DAMN CHARTER OF THE UN, the UN security council resolutions are the only one with majorly binding teeth, there is a procedure to move things from the security council to GA that have some force, but its rarely used because none of the big 5 want to see their power deminished.
Frankly a nation can violate like 99.9% of GA (Generaly Assembly) resolutions all it wants.
[B]That's ASSUMING.
No no no, in the REAL world the US is trying to justify their wrong actions with "right" reasons (like "liberating" Iraq and destroying their POSSIBLE WMD's, which US itself has more than any other country in the world!) and trying to only safe their oil sources and adjust the area to their liking. Plus Bush & partners seem to have a personal vendetta against Saddam as well.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Two problems here, the Russians still have more nuclear warheads then the US does, their arsenal returned to near pre Soviety collapse size with the repatration of those arsenals from the CIS states, even the Ukrain gave the ones in their territory back now.
Also the Russians always maintained a larger standing arsenal of chemical and biological weapons too, so your wrong about the US having "more" Its just ours will probably actualy work versus the Russians.
Secondly Iraqi oil, and mideast oil all together goes to your nation and those of your neighbors more then it does the US. we get about 12% from that region, and thats a high estimation.
[QUOTE][B]
Saddam did a gas attack back then and attacked Kuwait, but he was fought out of Kuwait, so that part is history and it was a different situation complitely. Back then Iraq actually attacked another country. They have not attacked or threatened anyone after that, expect after when US threatened Iraq first with a war. So there should be no reason to attack Iraq again. The WMD part like said was under inspection and going fine in most of the world's opinion.
[/B][/QUOTE]
At the end of the first gulf war there were a series of rules established in Iraq to govern the end of the conflict, they were essentialy an armistice agreement, once those were broken (and they were) technicly the US had every right according to traditional international principles to resume conflict
the situation is mostly analgous to about 1933 when Germany Started re arming, at that point France and England would have been justified to resume hostilities, and hell if they had done it THEN the mess of 1939-1945 would have been prevented.
Frankly I think we might actualy be LEARNING from history.
[B]I'm scared... I'm starting to sound like a conservative :eek: [/B][/QUOTE]
This is perhaps the greatest thing I've read in months. I don’t think you are sounding like a conservative, I think you are sounding like true moderate - just don't swing to an extreme and you'll be fine.
----------------------------------
Thank you President Hussein you have shown that you can invade another nation sue for peace under the terms of disarmament and drag out the 'disarmament' over decades.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that Europe did not learn from the Treaty of Versailles and their unwillingness to enforce disarmament of the Germans before world war two.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that you can massacre your own people without the world doing anything to stop it.
Thank you President Hussein for flushing out those leaders who are not willing to help people in need like the Kurds and the Shi'ite Muslims and the dictated people of Iraq.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that you can be a liar and deceitful for ten years and still not be called to accountability.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that the UN is easily deceived into believing that the destruction of a few missiles created during the supposed period of disarmament will make the UN believe you are honestly complying when you have still not accounted for Sarin and VX gas.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that the US is willing to help with the costs of a war to the people of Turkey but will still respect the wishes of that democracy if they choose not to be a part of it.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that our elected officials are willing to realize that behind every very vocal protestor is at least one individual if not more who are not protesting. Thank you for not being swayed by a very vocal minority.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that no one in the US eager to go to war.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that Dictators only respond to the amassing of forces along your border by the US.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that the French like the US massing it's forces on Iraq's border but are not willing to help pay the costs of keeping them there.
Thank you President Hussein for showing just how few European countries are willing to help with humanitarian aid.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that in free nations you can decent and only in a few unfortunate cases are the decanters questioned or briefly detained unlike in your country where they are executed.
Thank you President Hussein for showing that the United States can be painted as the evil one in the standoff by people with their own agendas while you go on with your own thing.
I have had to notice that my topic "Thank you, President Bush" was somehow "merged" with this thread, corrupting this thread's name, too. I have deleted my post in here, started another thread (as it was done before). Could an Admin please correct this thread's name, please?!
@Konrad: As far as I can tell you have not understood what was meant by this text. Millions have.
[B]And I suppose Assuming he won't follow the same behaviour he has been following for the past 12 years (and beyond) is MUCH safer.[/b][/quote]
Safer? Would you attack someone next to you because you don't feel safe beside him???
[quote][b]AHMAGAWD ! A country that's proven itself responsible in the usage of such weapons is trying to keep them away from someone who'll likely use it on their friendly nextdoor "zionist" state, HOW INCREDIBLY ILLOGICAL.
it's like... a cop taking a baretta away from a schoolyard punk ![/b][/quote]
Yeah responsible indeed. USA is the only country in the world who has actually used nuclear weapons remind you. And USA has attacked constantly other countries and fought outside of it's borders during it's history at least since the WWII, even though no country has ever attacked to the USA except Japanese did a one short attack to Pearl Harbor in WWII and now the Al-Qaida did the terrorist attack, which is nowhere comparable to a war. I don't think any other country has fought as many wars as USA at least after WWI. Think about that.
Also US has even planned to use nuclear weapons again and develope them further, which is against all the international laws. Also US unilaterally backed out from a nuclear test treaty. Yet the US is demanding things from other countries like they had an exclusive right along with a few major countries in the world to own WMD's and do what they want around the world and other countries don't.
[quote][b]Oil my ass, most of the oil america gets if from Venezuela, canada and Russia, with saudi allocating for about a fift of the total supply. the US' oil needs are quite well met at the moment. Hell, the ones who *DO* want the oil are the ones who are defending Iraq.[/b][/quote]
Actually Britain government has even admitted that the oil is one of the biggest reasons. You probably didn't know that.
[quote][b]I guess waiting for someone to strike first isa good idea...[/b][/quote]
That's exactly that unbelievable and dangerous talk I really can't understand.
[b]You can't attack someone or some country if you THINK they might attack you! That makes YOU the attacker and the aggressor! You have right to DEFEND yourself. Doing a pre-emptive strike is being aggressive and is wrong and is exactly what US is now going to do. Crime has not happened until the crime has happened![/b]
If everybody started to attack everyone they feel as a threat the whole world would be in an anarchy!
[quote][b]There has been for the past 12 years, the US has been showing *RESTRAINT* for chrissakes.[/b][/quote]
Actually the US has not done anything for the situation during the past 12 years after Saddam expelled the UN inspectors. But now, now they are in a hurry to do more than would be justified.
[quote][b]You mean like such.... outspoken examples as France, who Helped Iraq build nuclear facilities in the 80s, and currently still has major interests in Iraq's oil supplies (Guess who finances what they currently have). Or Russia, who's predecessor government has spent the years leading up to the gulf war arming the hell out of Saddam's forces ?[/b][/quote]
Those countries are now handling the issue, but in the right way.
And US DID help Saddam in the past as well and eg. Mr. Rumsfeld seemed to be Saddam's good friend in the past. Those are facts.
[quote][b]Yes it may be, but sometime there's very little choice[/b][/quote]
But there IS choice, because the inspections were going well. That's the whole point.
And if something is wrong then you should not do it. It's not a matter of a choice.
- PJH
[B]The USA and Israel are the states which are in conflict with the most UN resolutions.
As far as I remember, 180 of 191 UN member states voiced that they are against a war against Iraq.
The USA, in fear that the answer will be "No", steps back from issuing a second resolution to the Security Council which could allow them to act as if this war would be justifiable. It is not, it is an aggression and should be punished. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's right.
The US is using earlier UN resolutions to justify the attack and at the same time turns their back to the UN itself! So Iraq and other countries must obey UN resolutions, but US can do whatever they want. What a hypocrisy.
- PJH
[B]Two problems here, the Russians still have more nuclear warheads then the US does, their arsenal returned to near pre Soviety collapse size with the repatration of those arsenals from the CIS states, even the Ukrain gave the ones in their territory back now.
Also the Russians always maintained a larger standing arsenal of chemical and biological weapons too, so your wrong about the US having "more" Its just ours will probably actualy work versus the Russians. [/b][/quote]
So you have "only" the second biggest arsenal of WMD's then. So what? Like it made any difference? That was not the point.
[quote][b] Secondly Iraqi oil, and mideast oil all together goes to your nation and those of your neighbors more then it does the US. we get about 12% from that region, and thats a high estimation. [/b][/quote]
So what?
[quote][b]At the end of the first gulf war there were a series of rules established in Iraq to govern the end of the conflict, they were essentialy an armistice agreement, once those were broken (and they were) technicly the US had every right according to traditional international principles to resume conflict[/b][/quote]
Broken how? Who did the agreement? What's in that agreement? To justify resuming an armed conflict would require a very severe breach of an agreement, such as a new attack against someone.
And btw, FYI the "no fly zones" established after the Gulf War were never accepted by UN.
[quote][b]the situation is mostly analgous to about 1933 when Germany Started re arming, at that point France and England would have been justified to resume hostilities, and hell if they had done it THEN the mess of 1939-1945 would have been prevented.[/b][/quote]
Oh come one. You can't compare those. And Iraq was not re-arming to our knowledge. Inspectors did not find any proof which would suggest that. And now they don't have a change to find any proof anymore. Besides US had decided to attack Iraq anyway, because Bush & co. want's to get rid of Saddam and safe the oil, not destroy Iraq's possible WMD's.
[quote][b]Frankly I think we might actualy be LEARNING from history. [/B][/QUOTE]
If only you would!
- PJH
You have to look at the precedents that you set when you examine this whole situation. It's taken Iraq 12 years to get to this point. We are at a point which reminds one of similar circumstances in 1995 when Inspectors were failing to turn up any new weapons and there was a push from France to lift sanctions. The defection of Husien Kamil brought light to what was really going on. The ups and downs of the inspection process show it's failure. Inspections were designed to merely verify the destruction of Iraqs weapons, not to hunt for them. The inspection process relies upon good faith on both sides. Having to hunt for weapons is absolutely rediculous - like some childhood game. Other countires have disarmed under the UN's watch - Kazikstan and South Africa, and neither took near 12 years - so successful inspection are possible, but only when both parties want to be rid of weapons.
When you look at the recent "cooperation" you'll see that the Iraqi's are only destroying, on average, 2-3 al Samud missles a day, where inspectors said that they could rid dozens a day should they wish to destroy them quickly. I believe I heard that the latest Blix report on Iraqi cooperation (or lack thereof) is around 63 pages long... an itemized list of 63 pages of things Iraq has failed to do thus far. This last minute cooperation is merely propaganda, and seems to be working on many people.
How long does one need to fully disarm? How many last chances does one need before they stop taking them seriously? How many inspectors does one need to play "hide and go seek" in a country the size of California? When you look at the precedent you set by allowing Iraq to drag their feet in defiance of International law regarding some of the most sinister weapons systems known to man, you send a very dangerous message. Is it possible that rougue states such as Iran and North Korea have taken note of the failure of the UN to deal with Iraq? Did North Korea's expulsion of UN atomic inspectors not seem to mimic actions taken by Iraq? You set a very very bad precedent.
Depending on how you read into resolution 1441 you can argue that force was authorized. Be honest now, at that point in time, was there SERIOUSLY a doubt in your mind as to what the phrase "serious consequences" meant? Now be honest.
I do find it rather humerous that the latest British proposal to the UN was rejected by France even before Iraq rejected it. History has shown us that Saddam truly only responds to force, and for the French to want to remove any threat of force from future resolutions would in fact void their usefullness. Remove the threat of force and you get little results from the Iraqi leadership.
I assume everyone here who believes this war is about oil has not seen the news or paid attention to what's going on. Several days ago, White House spokesman Ari Fleicher came out and stated that "Oil in Iraq would be for the Iraqi people to do with as they please." So "Bush & co." aren't after the oil - unless you have fact or proof to prove otherwise.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Broken how? Who did the agreement? What's in that agreement? To justify resuming an armed conflict would require a very severe breach of an agreement, such as a new attack against someone. [/B][/QUOTE]
It's UN resolution 687 which was adopted after the Gulf War, read it for yourself: [url]http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/old_site/unres687.html[/url]
Well, that's my two cents...
[B]
Why are we doing this? Iran has a much more advanced nuclear program. North Korea has working nuclear weapons now. Iraq cannot use any of the WMDs it may or may not have because the enitre world has kept a close eye on them for the last 12 years.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Iran and North Korea didn't gas thousands of members of an ethnic minority in their own country. If we were going through the a like situation now with North Korea the same people would be saying, "Why not Iraq? Why not Iran?"
And how have we kept a close eye on the WMDs that they DO have(chemical weapons are a WMD) when the inspectors, until last november, hadn't even been in the country since the late 90's. And remember, the airstrike that got them kicked out was a result of Iraq preventing those same inspectors from doing their job.