|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-01 16:33:11
fatmomma,
an Ambassador is here to represent their nation. Mr. Cellucci is an agent of the US and as such, his words, irrespective of whether we agree with them are perfectly acceptable as long as they reflect the feelings of his own government.
Your bitterness to the Rt. Hon. Mulroney from signing on to a rules based trading agreement (FTA and later the NAFTA) shows an ignorance of the economy that Canada development since WWII.
If we wish to have the US respect our views of the world, then we must also show that same respect back. Calling for the expulsion of a US ambassador simply because we dislike the message from Washington is an embarrassment and juvenile.
While I do support the war, I do so because I feel it is right. That is what Canada needs today, a leader who can say we stand for something - Harper has done that, regardless of whether you are agree or disagree with him. To use the words of Thoreau, "(b)e not simply good, be good for something."
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 00:44:19
Mulroney was neither right or honorable.The free trade agreement was long after WWII. The USA plays games over free trade with Canada. Mulroney did not make a good deal for Canada; he made a good deal for his own interests and pockets. That is what nearly wiped out the conservative party.
The USA has no right to constantly question our stand; Canada's stand was in keeping with our beliefs; we are free to make our own decisions. I do not believe it is proper to threaten us with trade difficulties for making our
own decisions. It is the USA/British coalition that is out of step with the world and the UN.
Our leader, Mr Cretien did stand up for our Canadian beliefs.
Mr Harper wants to rubber stamp the US; he would agree to joining this war; not because it is right and whatmost Canadian want but because it is what Mr. Bush wants. That is not a leader; that is a puppy dog.
Iraq was not shown to be a threat to world peace; but this war by MR Bush and MR Blair is. It is creating more hate and distrust in the world and will
encourage more terrorist acts in North America. This has even been acknowledge
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-03 13:45:59
Irrespective one's personal feelings of Mulroney, as far as a foreign an economic policy, he did establish several key areas of what Canadians now consider an honourable foreign policy. It was Mr. Mulroney who worked bilaterally with the United States to established the Acid Rain Treaty. Protection of the artic was high on the agenda. Not to mentioned it was Canada that lead the Commonwealth in the removal of apartheid South Africa. The Multicultural Act is also one of Mulroney's legacy items to Canada (despite my opposition to it). However, the crown jewel of Mulroney's time in office was the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). However, Free Trade should be another thread on this board.
You say that the US has no right to question our stand, yet the world seems to be questioning theirs. If we have the right to ask why they are going to war, then surly they must have the same right to question why we are not going to war? We went into Kosovo without the UN, yet we are not going into Iraq. We claimed it was humanitarian in the former case, yet thousands of Iraqis dieing each month in the latter does not appear to make the same qualification. We support the war on terror and proved so by toppling the regime in Afghanistan, yet we do not do the same in Iraq even given the numerous violations of the UN resolutions over the past twelve years (looking at the time Saddam has been in power makes the case even more convincing for his removal). The worst part is, this is the same government under Jean Chrétien I am referring to. So what values are the current Liberals standing for? Mr Harper has gone on the record that saying that it is just wrong not be going into Iraq. He has been on record for saying that opinion polls be damned, that we must make a moral decision. The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair subjected himself to a debate in his House of Commons, in which he defended his position. I have yet to hear a reason from my government other then, we would go, but only if the UN agrees. That is not a moral position, that is abdication of responsibility for making a moral decision.
The outcome of this war is unknown - here is hoping for another Germany and France.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-03 21:49:26
While I agree with some of your message, there are a few points I could make as to why we should have taken the stand we did.
Firstly, defying UN resolutions. Many countries have defied the UN, so that argument is somewhat invalid. Israel has defied them for a longer period, in a greater number, and has actually shot and killed UN workers. (and denied them medical assistance). If Iraq did this, it would have been front page news in the west.
Secondly, public debate is sorely needed, and Mr. Blair deserves some commendation for standing up to speak his mind.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, refused an offer to debate Saddam Hussein publicly, when this could have gone a long way to 'bring truth out in the open' but I believe that would have been the last thing Mr. Bush wants.
Finally, I must say that while deciding to back a UN resolution, not just a 'coalition of the coerced' resolution, was the right thing to do. It may seem on the surface like an excuse, but it would have been far more damaging to our relations if we would have said "You made your bed, you must lie in it. Your greed-driven manipulation of world affairs has made you the most hated nation on earth. Why should we support yet another aggressive, greedy action when your motives are so clear? Your policy has been unchanged for decades, America #1, all else yield, by hook or by crook".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-05 12:15:52
I must that I still disagree that we should not be involved in this comment. My reasons have less to do with Mr. bush (and I will say that I fully support the Rt. Hon. Blair - he has shown true leadership), but rather it harkens back to the days of late 1960s.
I find it most odd that the people I find that best show the reasons why we should be involved in Iraq come from the historical left. It was Escott Reid in 1968 that stated:
"No nation has the right to try and solve its problems by methods which involve the destruction of the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. These fundamental rights and freedoms include the right to protection by the state from mob tyranny and the right to a fair trial. This is what national and international declarations and statutes on fundamental freedoms are all about."
That sounds like a good policy to me. I wish we were following it with the current war on Iraq.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 16:32:41
Hi RCGGILLIS,
Are you saying we should wait for mushroom clouds on our soil before we stop Saddam or his sons?
Do you think Saddam is nuts enough to pass WMD to a 3rd party? Would you trust Saddam with our lives?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-06 14:59:42
Barretm82,
Actually, I do agree wit the US/UK coalition of the willing. The point I was trying to make is that in the past, as noted by Escott Reid, Canada stood for something. We were able to make the tough moral decisions that were required of us. We stood along side our NATO allies and worked with the US in NORAD to ensure that we were safe. It was then they were worked in the multilateral environment under Pearson to establish peacekeeping efforts around the world.
I think Canada should be involved in the war on Iraq. The Iraqi people are the ones having their rights violated by their own government. I think we as Canadians know that the regime of Saddam is wrong, and thus we should be standing up against him, irrespective of the UN. I think I have articulated my position better then in the above post if you care to read them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-06 17:19:23
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
Yeah, sometimes we miss things when we read too quickly. oops... :)
Good to see you on the forum.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-06 22:34:54
While I agree with the text of your speech, as it were, I disagree that the US has this as practical dogma.
Canada disagreed with the US that the fundamental issue behind this action (It cannot be called 'war' because none was declared) was the issue of Human Rights. The US has tried to portray itself as acting under a UN resolution, #1441 among others.
The US is not acting to carry out any UN resolution, however. They are acting out of the United States Presidential Security Directive paper submitted by George Bush in 1991. Every President must submit one to the 'nation'. In George Jr's, he qualified the US right to 'pre-emptive strikes wherever the US sees a threat'.
Really, a Canadian stance on the subject didn't matter, for the US' actions were a foregone conclusion since last year. We must stand with a democracy of nations even if it means taking a stand against a friend who has chosen to 'go it alone' against the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:09:53
There is no such thing as a democracy of nations.
The US did not "go it alone" against the world. There are nations who agree with the US course of action.
Canada did not agree because of our internal politics (Quebec) and our slavish love of an institution which gives enormous power to countries without any burden of accompanied responsibility.
The UN resolutions process is an utter disgrace and its failure to act anywhere is what killed the UN.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-09 00:53:01
Not nations; leaders. Most of people of Britain were against the war.
Canadian people did not support his war because of the lack of proof that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction. The UN was still getting cooperation from Iraq.
Bush and Blair lied about proofs of Iraq's WMD by producing fraudulent documents.
Quebec was not the only province that did not support the invasion of Iraq.
Cretien's reasons for not supporting this invasion are not as clear as I would like; but I am glad he made the decision he did.
Canada does not owe an apology to the Coalition countries;
The coalition countries should be the only countries to fund the rebuilding of Iraq. They caused the destruction; they should pay for their damage.
Canada should pay our share to rebuild Afghanistan.
Alexa McDonough is correct; Canada should take a strong stand and declare our position opposing this action of the coalition countries.
The UN should consider sanctions against the USA / Britain. Perhaps they should only be allowed to import enough oil for homeland use; none for their military.
Israel should be told to disarm or face sanctions.
I am really only venting my anger but something must be done to prevent the USA from attacking any country they wish
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 10:47:31
Fatmomma, You have slowly lost credibility with Barretm82, so what more is there to say... Go ahead, rant on... Sad but true.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-10 23:15:15
No problem Barrett; you haven't made any strong argument for your side that I can see.
My main objection with this invasion was in Bush's rush into this invasion. He could have waited for Saddam to balk. Saddam would have quit cooperating with the inspectors eventually if he had anything to hide. Then the world would have been behind this invasion including Arab/ Muslim countries. It is the backlash against this pre emptive attack with tainted proofs that I believe will bring more hatred to Western countries. The Iraq liberation (if that is the object of this invasion) should have been accomplished by Iraq initiative with a coalition of the willing in a supporting role only.
A hand picked (by America) Iraq government will be looked on as suspect.
I believe a country must be strong enough to lead the fight for its freedom if it is to be strong enough to hold on to that freedom
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 11:19:00
I agree with you, your points are quite valid... The arab countries are actually going to the UN General Assembly - its a bit overdue, but they said they will do it...
Reply to this message
|
|
