Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Security

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-02 12:28:27

I agree with most of your assesement, except of course when you say that in this case we should have acted... Canada's position is the right one.

"To several of the other posters here, I leave with this quote from Iraqi poet Awad Nasser, "(a)re [peace protesters] ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?""

I have a problem with superpowers which are not isolationist, the US fits this description perfectly currently (it did not fit this case in the early years of the 20th century). But i have no facts, so we could put this in the 'emotional' category.

I am angered by the illegality of this invasion, and the precedent it creates... Attacking Iraq is illegal, all the jurists have said so (including the UN Jurist Association - whatever that is). So this is a semi-emotional response (its a fact, but my anger is innapropriate).

But more importantly, and this is a fact, the consequences of this will be severe in the middle-east and the world... Just talk to some arab people, and you'll see their reaction, they feel humiliated by Israel, now they are humiliated by the US ... They consider Saddam a martyr ... Seriously, was this war really worth the consequences you described?

What will happen AFTER the war in Iraq will be capital - If the US awards contracts to the US only, puts in charge US people and not Iraqi people - you know as well as me what the consequences will be - Unless you live on another planet...

Currently i know that the UK are trying hard to convince the US government to go through the UN, resolve the palestinian problem and leave Iraqi people control their country - and there is friction between the UK and the US with this... I cannot say what will happen currently. But the consequences will live long after the war is finished...

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-04-02 20:23:32

Codco1, you are entirely correct in your assesment of the (possible) post Saddam Iraq. Hatred of the US(and UK) will grow by leaps and bounds throughout the world if they 'divide the spoils among the victors'. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old outfit, wisely chose not to, at this time, announce their direct involvement in 'rebuilding' Iraq. The implications of one nation 'smashing another' and then using Iraqi money to pay US corporations (especially one that the vice-president has close ties to) to rebuild that which the aggressor demolished, smacks of almost every arrogance and evil imaginable. The consequences, too, are equally hideous.
Perpetual revenge seems to be the 'politic of the day' in almost the entire world. It must end.

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-04-03 11:52:04

It is completely mis-leading to say there is friction between the UK and the US over:

"the UK are trying hard to convince the US government to go through the UN, resolve the palestinian problem and leave Iraqi people control their country"

This alleges that the friction is over three issues:

1) UN involvement
2) Resolving the Palestinian Problem
3) Leve Iraqi People to cotnrol their country

Actually, the friction is on issue #1. Issues #2 and #3 create no friction as both countries agree in principle, but may disagree on timing.

But, by lumping all three together, we get to perpetuate the notion that the US wants to stay in Iraq as a colonizer and keep Palestine occupied as well. This isn't true and hurts all of us when we perpetuate this train of thought. Harmless here in Canada. Dangerous in the Middle East.

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-03 16:52:57

I'm not so sure about issue #2, I don't think the US is pushing hard enough, while the UK seems to be... (And Israel is not at all happy about it...)

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-04-03 21:29:21

You are right, mostly, about point #'s 1&3. The US has stated today that no other nation except the US could or should be the 'rebuilders' of Iraq. Their argument was based mostly on the need of continued military presence (which could be done by the UN, or Canada for that matter) and the HUGE expenditures they have put into the war effort. Simply said, they want the return on their investment.
They do not want to 'reward' any countries that were not suporting their actions. The story of 'The Little Red Hen' comes to mind, but the story takes a hideous twist when it represents a conquering nation dividing up the 'spoils'.
In regards to Palestine, Israel is deeply upset that the US wants to push for a state for palestinians, when G-d himself promised them the lands of Judea, Samaria and Yesha.
I urge you to read, on a semi-regular basis, The Israeli National News, Arutz Sheva and all of the Rabbinical interpretations (these come out once a week under 'Ask The Rabbi') that guide Israel's policies.
It is not as untrue as you may think.

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-04 02:55:31

The USA felt no such compunction to hang around and rebuild Afghanistan. The USA has been reluctant to push for control of Israel or to provide any support for Palestine. Their promise of support now appears to be a public relations propaganda boost once they secure a permanent foothold in the middle east by taking contol of Iraq.
Note; the female American POW captured than rescued appears to have been well treated by Iraq and provided with medical care

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-05 20:13:04

Well 3 is debatable too. They may eventually let Iraqi people control their country but the USA wants to hand pick them, Blair realizes the the UN should be involved. A regime that is hand picked by the USA would be looked on with more distrust. The UN assisting would be more broadly acceptable

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-07 06:29:33

I certainly hope that Blair will succeed, otherwise i can't even imagine the consequences... I've read that if the US leads the Iraqi government (e.g : Taking care of reconstruction, etc - exluding day to day affairs), they will be violating the Geneva convention!!!

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-08 03:44:19

Violating Geneva conventions is not new to this American government. The prisoners being held in Guatanamo bay are not being given any rights.
Bush screamed for American POW 's being shown on TV in violation of the Geneva convention but I have seen many Iraqi prisoners being paraded in front of the cameras before and after. About 2 days ago, there were closeups of many Iraqi POWs with bags over their heads and a closeup to show how scared and shaking they were.

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-08 14:35:11

I know, seeing pictures of POW's in humiliating positions is revolting ... This goes for all sides. When i saw pictures of POW's on the Globe And Mail web site, i was shocked... and it was in VERY humiliating positions - they should at least blur the faces of the people so they can't be identified ... Same is true for the dispicable interviews of American POW's by Iraq (they stopped fast after that...)

Reply to this message

Cellucci Speech

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-10 23:24:22

I saw more pictures of Iraqi prisoners clad in only undershorts, face down on the ground; one face completely close up and a pair of legs in an unatural position in front of the picture . I believe it was in todays Vancouver Sun. April 10.
Does still pictures make it right?

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic