|
Post by glendo on Apr 5, 2003 17:30:37 GMT -5
self-censored
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Apr 8, 2003 10:21:54 GMT -5
The ultimate in "moderating" S....
|
|
|
Post by whowon on Apr 8, 2003 18:11:23 GMT -5
So long as the US dont run Iraq for their profit, they are at least entitled to have a significant say in the reconstruction. They have spent what will amount to $100bn and that number could double.
The french want in on the act now as they know there are lucrative rebuilding contracts to be won, well, you didnt want to be a part of it so you can just deal with the new government when it is set up. In the mean time, the US will be the main contractor in the rebuilding of Iraq. For the Iraqis. The oil will be theirs, for the people, lets hope.
|
|
|
Post by Cine_Man on Apr 10, 2003 19:14:58 GMT -5
the viewers are getting bored.
Is there an ending? Will there be credits? Will it just "fade to black"?
Who's revising the script?
Iraq apparently has ceased to exist as a country -- it apparently has no civic authority, and no constitution.
Is there someone writing a "We the ______ (fill in the blanks) People, " document somewhere for someone to autograph?
Can the "liberators" appeal to some sort of morality to shore up the power vacuum that threatens to implode there? How exactly is the request to "be nice" going to play? Who is the cheque written out to in exchange for all that oil that is shortly going to be pumped out? "The People of Iraq"? What a great idea! The Republican Bush spawns a new Socialist structure.... I'll bet.
Can't wait to get over there for the Palace Tours...
Cine_...
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Apr 11, 2003 5:48:32 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, has anybody seen any clear evidence so far that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction? Was this not the primary argument used by the coalition to go to war against Iraq?
Although it is no doubt a good thing that Saddam and his croonies are removed, and the prospect for the Iraqis is probably brighter than what it was, I am still bothered by this fact.
The only thing that I have seen on pro-American TV (CNN, MSNBC) with regards to possible WMD findings are anti chemical military suits. They have found nothing else so far! In the end, this does imply that the war was no justified, or at least not justified on the basis of the arguments provided by the US.
|
|
|
Post by alexmd on Apr 11, 2003 8:49:55 GMT -5
I completly agree with you Henrik.
They better turn up some concrete evidence soon that they actually did have WMD.
If not, this sets a dangerous precedent - anybody that is strong enough militarily and manages to convince more than 20% of public opinion that a country is up to something fishy will be able to do whatever the hell they want.
I'm still wondering why did the security council not act. It looks to me that the US is willing to go along with the international bodies as loong as it suits their needs. When these diverge, the international comunity is suddenly irelevant.
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Apr 11, 2003 9:22:46 GMT -5
I have not contributed to this thread as I am still not convinced that the "WAR" option was the one and only way out. It has been suggested that a specialist assassination task force could have rid Iraq of an evil regime under a monster such as Saddam Hussein just as effectively, but at a considerably lower financial cost without the loss of civilian life. True, the viability of such an operation/attempt can almost certainly be questioned. But was it ever considered? The cost of the newfound Iraqi "freedom" just seems excessively high and there are Iraqi citizens who say "Too high".
The big question, for me is this: The UN's intensive investigation of the possible existence of remaining WDC's continued for a long, long time. A great part of the world were becoming more and more convinced that less and less evidence WDC's were being found, indicating that these have indeed been detroyed under UN supervision or by Saddam's crowd themselves. In other words, the defence systems of Iraq were reduced to nothing but a make-shift excuse for a military power. Then, at the comfortable time, the MIGHTY US/UK war machine walks over the already weakened Iraq completely. As we have witnessed in most of the news media. A cakewalk, I'd say. No big deal. It was easy. Almost as if had been planned to be that way.
But has it finished ? And with the restitution which has to begin, when ? How ? Is there anything that can recompense for the loss of dear ones and through it the bitterness ? The crippled and maimed people ? The widows ? The orphans ? Do they feel insulted ? Is this what they asked for ? AFP reported a man standing at one of the bodies along the airport road in Baghdad as saying: "If this is the price of freedom, I don't want it."
I am sorry to have written this, but I felt compelled to. I have nothing against people of any nation whatsoever. Whether they be American, British, Iraqi or whatever you like. People do tend to be gullible at times and are easily influenced or even brain-washed by politicians and the media for whatever dark reasons they may have. There are those reasons that seem admirable on face value but, unfortunately, sometimes turn out not to be. These people, in my mind, are also evil people. Even if they claim and are reported not to be.
OK. Here I am against the wall. Shoot me if you want. I'm not the piano player. I am only responding to the music being played by someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Apr 11, 2003 10:10:59 GMT -5
ElSid; As a South African you have seen (or heard of) more political termoil than most. Even if you had not your views, and you aremost welcome. Yes the "hit" would have been the best way, he might be elusive, but it was possibile.
|
|
|
Post by alexmd on Apr 11, 2003 10:25:44 GMT -5
SUNDAY HERALD COLUMN -- March 26, 2003 Subject: Letter to the American Ambassador to Canada by Silver Donald Cameron To: Ambassador Paul Cellucci Embassy of the United States of America 490 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario Dear Mr. Ambassador: Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive. Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S. pressure and Canadian opinion, a familiar position for Canadian Prime Ministers - and he will not tell you to go pound sand. But someone should. Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq. "There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family." Codswallop. And that's being diplomatic. The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United States. A monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestors for repelling an invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The very first instance of military co-operation among the Thirteen Colonies occurred in 1745 under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor as Governor of Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and captured the Fortress of Louisbourg. Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your privateers sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The birth of Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a US invasion. That's why our railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the US border. Do you remember "manifest destiny," the 1840's US doctrine which held that your country had a God-given mission to rule all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the slogan which rallied Americans to threaten an invasion of Canada in 1902 over the Alaska boundary? Yours is the only country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened. And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to come to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in 1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A million Canadians fought in World War II, and 45,000 died. We need no lectures from Americans about the defense of liberty and democracy. Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as close as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians -- I am one -- have family members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991. And when great catastrophe strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each other. As Governor of Massachusetts, you must have been present at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston each year – this tree is an annual gift from Nova Scotia to commemorate the immediate and massive assistance of Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917. Our chance to reciprocate came on September 11, 2001, when Canadian communities took in, on a moment's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S. planes forced down by the terrorist attacks. Halifax alone hosted 7,200 people. We housed them in our homes and schools and churches, fed them and comforted them and treated them as family. We probably gave more immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country. Yet when your President later thanked nations for their help, he did not even mention Canada. The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a deliberate choice. Your President has squandered a worldwide outpouring of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years -- an astounding diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening. A huge body of opinion -- even in the U.S. and Britain -- judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have noticed that the September 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is a sideshow, a grudge match, a distraction. It will breed more martyrs, and more terrorists. Back in Massachusetts, in 1846, a young man was arrested and jailed for refusing to pay taxes, to avoid supporting his government's deplorable policies. He explained this in an essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," which has ever since inspired people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. His name was Henry David Thoreau, and no doubt the Governor of Massachusetts thought he was a pretty poor American. He was not; like King, he was a voice for what is finest in American life and values. And the issue on which he took his stand may sound a bit familiar. He was opposed to an imperial war -- the unprovoked US invasion that stripped Mexico of 40% of its territory. Good citizens and good friends oppose bad policies. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies. That is the message you should take back to the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will understand it. Sincerely, Silver Donald Cameron
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Apr 11, 2003 11:10:37 GMT -5
That's nice Alex, but two days ago our Prime Minister stood in question period and declared that the government would stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies. This three weeks after the war had started. Furthermore, the Canadian government has refused to acknowledge that Canadian personnel are in the gulf and are in the line of fire. How's that for government support of its own troops. As far as WMD go I could give a crap. Saddam is gone and I am happy as are the Iraqi people. Should the French, German and Russian nations get free access to Iraq, I say no. In due time when there is a new Iraqi government to make their own decisions then they can have whomever they want build and be a customer. The US has already stated that the UN will be involved. In fact Cheney stated it yesterday. Order will be restored as soon as the coalition has full control. Give it a few days/weeks. Look at Basra, the Brits have restored order there already. So much American hate here, consider your options.
|
|
|
Post by alexmd on Apr 11, 2003 12:37:56 GMT -5
As far as WMD go I could give a crap. Saddam is gone and I am happy as are the Iraqi people. I've seen similar opinions before. I think it tends to trivialise the issue a little bit. "We don't care if they didn't find any, Saddam is gone." Wasn't that the original purpose of the invasion? To rid Saddam of WMD's? It seems highly unlikely now that he has any. So the obvious conclusion is that UN was right (inspections) and US was wrong. Basically the war did not serve it's stated goal. On the other hand it had the fortunate side efect that Saddam is gone. If the Bush administration is to gain any credibility (as far as I am concerned) shit needs to get done by the book. Isn't it the cheating and lieing that got the Iraki people were they are? Not to mention that I disagree with the whole crap on "pre-emptive war." First of all the morality of that is higly debatable and second it's always subject quality of info the secret service is able to gather. They didn't know about the WTC. So how the hell can these people start a war when the information they have can't prevent a disaster in their own back yard? And if they can do it, why can't anybody else? How about India nukeing Pakistan because they could do that and they could do this. Or Romania invading Hungary because ... they could ... (fill in the blanks) or simply because well we don't like them but we'll find a pretext that's acceptable now that the states have set new standards in this respect. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? There was no proof of WMD. They are yet to find some. There was no proof al links to Al-Quaida and they are yet to find some. Ok, i'm stoping the rant now... But i think it gives a little insight into what i think about this big mess Mr. Bush created. Discalimer: This is not an anti-american post. But if you think it's anti-american foreighn policy or anti-Bush I won't argue with you there.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Apr 11, 2003 12:52:36 GMT -5
I saw a very disturbing piece of journalism on CBC newsworld the other day. It was about nuclear weapons and how easy it is to purchase them from the former soviet union. Even the Chechen rebel leader stated before the camera that if you had 30M USD you could purchase three nuclear warheads. workers are commonly selling radioactive materials and isotopes for use in dirty bombs. The article stated that the Russian mob control the sale of such weapons and that there is a 90% chance already that Saddam had purchased black market warheads from the russians. Furthermore, a Russian general stated that a suitcase nuclear bomb existed and that he no longer knew of how many there are and where they are. No codes are needed to detonate such a bomb and the general stated that it would take only half an hour to set the bomb to detonate.
In this day and age I would prefer our government to not take a wait and see attitude, the fall of the Iron curtain has opened a market that should never have been opened, weapons flow freely across the Kazakhstan border into Pakistan Iran and Iraq. If you are not scared you should be, because these people really hate you because of your lifestyle, imagine a terrorist with a nuke strapped to his waist istead of dynamite. Its a real possibility.
|
|
|
Post by justan on Apr 11, 2003 13:01:40 GMT -5
I have not contributed to this thread as I am still not convinced that the "WAR" option was the one and only way out. It has been suggested that a specialist assassination task force could have rid Iraq of an evil regime under a monster such as Saddam Hussein just as effectively, but at a considerably lower financial cost without the loss of civilian life. True, the viability of such an operation/attempt can almost certainly be questioned. But was it ever considered? The cost of the newfound Iraqi "freedom" just seems excessively high and there are Iraqi citizens who say "Too high". But has it finished ? And with the restitution which has to begin, when ? How ? Is there anything that can recompense for the loss of dear ones and through it the bitterness ? The crippled and maimed people ? The widows ? The orphans ? Do they feel insulted ? Is this what they asked for ? AFP reported a man standing at one of the bodies along the airport road in Baghdad as saying: "If this is the price of freedom, I don't want it.". Good points all. Indeed the CIA or who ever is in charge of these things did consider various options. A specialist assassination task force as you label it was considered infeasible for various reasons. In addition they considered(the truth) overdosing the viagara pills that Saddam has delivered from a pharmacy in Jordan. This plan was also stopped. No reason given. All this from watching CNN About your latter point. It would interesting to interview some familys who lost relatives during their struggle for freedom against Apertheid in SA. The same goes for familys in Kosovo and else where. regards
|
|
|
Post by alexmd on Apr 11, 2003 13:20:35 GMT -5
If anything that very article gives you a very compeling reason NOT to invade Iraq and just stay the hell away from that entire area. This incursion into the mid-east could very well spark a wave of terrorism like the world has never seen before. And there's no way to prevent it. Unfortunately Pandora's box has been opened and all we have is hope.
On the "being afraid" thing: I refuse to be afraid. Firstly because it has a funny way of interfering with reason and secondly because you just can't live your life in fear.
Maybe we should spend less on war and more on fighting the peoples ignorance and on education. Education is the only way, i think, to rid the world of these issues. Or at least bring them to accetable levels.
If the Bush administration would have went along these lines - well we're after Saddam because he prevents his people from being educated, keeps them in ignorance and fosters anti-wetern (not anti american, you gotta make it everybody's cause, at least for the public opinion) feelings so we have 20.000.000 potential terrorists - i would have probably bought more into theirs bull. The test begins now - lets see that Iraki democracy arise (never going to happen, mark my words) - and how long US troops will be stationed there. US failed miserably in the propaganda war. I'm not sure that was something they could afford.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Apr 11, 2003 13:39:21 GMT -5
COUNTDOWN TO THE APOCALYPSE Monday, April 7
As the U.S.-led coalition forces stage a full-scale invasion against Iraq, military and security experts fear a backlash that could lead to more terrorist acts around the world. THE PASSIONATE EYE looks at the possibilities of extremists resorting to the ultimate weapon, nuclear terrorism.
Countdown to the Apocalypse uses investigative reporting and extensive interviews to demonstrate why the world has to prepare itself for a terrorist attack on an unprecedented scale. There is plenty to support the notion that nuclear components, "suitcase bombs" and "dirty bombs" are available on the international black market.
Following the breakup of the former Soviet Union, high-ranking members of Soviet military and nuclear scientists say that not all nuclear weapons and components are accounted for, and there's evidence of an illegal trade in radioactive materials, the necessary ingredient for a "dirty bomb". There's worryingly close links between terrorist networks and Russian organized crime, as well as secret meetings between scientists and nuclear plant personnel and members of extremist organizations. There is also evidence that Bin Laden was attempting to procure a nuclear weapon in the months leading up to September 11th.
The filmmakers spoke with politicians, ex-secret servicemen and nuclear physicists in the United States, Russia, France and Pakistan whose concerns were strikingly specific. They all said if we do not take action now, it will soon be impossible to stop "the countdown to the Apocalypse."
Countdown to the Apocalypse by Hesi Carmel, Jean-Marc Gonin and Richard Puech is produced by the French television production company CAPA .
As far as educating peoples ignorance, I'm afraid you would have little chance against Islamic fundamentalists who believe that all infidels should die, you're dealing with their religion. I agree that there is no point in living in fear, but I would be stupid not to be afraid of the madness and hate that exists in the world.
As far as taking a hands off approach to the region, I don't think that is possible. First and foremost without US intervention Israel would be blown to high heaven. I don't want to sit by and let that happen. I know that the Israelis are no angels and have committed a number of mistakes but that does not take away from the fact that there are people who would nuke Israel right now if they had the chance.
Pandoras box is open, I think we have to do more than hope somebody doesn't use the bomb. Do you let an angry kid keep a gun he obtained and hope he doesn't shoot someone.
|
|