Disarmament Was Working...

[Michael Griffiths]

Bush initially asked for a resolution that would provide for war as a last resort. It is my firm belief that all the possibilities were not exhausted. This is a result of a man desperate to go to war. And now he has his war. What a shame for the UN, but more so what a shame for the future of the world in relation to that body. This sets a precedent in that any nation, if powerful enough, will now be able to do whatever they want to do in the world stage, regardless of consequence and world opinion. The Romans and the Greeks and Germany and many others all believed this at one point, too (and we all know that they didn't last as superpowers). America was one of the great visionaries who helped take humanity up the next evolutionary step on the social ladder. Thus, an even bigger shame is that we've taken many steps backwards because of one administration's lack of vision.

Make no mistake: Saddam is an evil tyrant. It's a shame that, 1), Bush and company couldn't find another solution and 2), that they don't seem to give a damn about the fundamental consequences of this action (and I'm not just talking about the loss of mass civilian life in Iraq). This, if anything, will brew more anti-Americanism in the region, and cause more terrorism. The lesser of two evils was not chosen by Bush. Also, disarmament (and even Saddam's removal) could have been achieved in a number of other ways. From a utilitarian standpoint, it is clearly the wrong time to lauch a military strike -- as it was supposed to be a last resort, and clearly it is not.

Disarmament was working: Chr?tien
Last Updated Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:12:30

OTTAWA - The federal government came under sustained fire from the opposition benches in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon over its decision not to go to war against Iraq.

* INDEPTH: Iraq: Canada's Perspective
Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper led the charge in question period by asking why Canada wouldn't help topple a regime led by a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein.

But the prime minister fired back, suggesting there are other countries that might be at least as deserving of regime change, but that's not what the UN resolution was about.

"(Resolution) 1441 was not on the change of regime, it was on disarmament," Jean Chr?tien said. "The process was on its way to realization. The Americans decided it wasn't going fast enough."

The opinions of opposition politicians and U.S. officials notwithstanding, the bulk of the federal Liberal caucus supports Chr?tien's decision not to go to war without UN backing.


John Harvard

"I can't think of an issue ? and I've been here 15 years ? where the caucus has been so united," said Winnipeg MP John Harvard.

Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal said he believes the decision not to follow U.S. President George Bush was the right one for Canada.

"I think it's really regrettable and unfortunate that (Bush has) made this decision when the whole world is crying out for peace, the public everywhere is saying don't go to war," Dhaliwal said.


* FROM MARCH 17, 2003: PM says Canada won't fight in Iraq


Opposition Leader Stephen Harper responded angrily to that argument. "I don't give a damn about the polls," he said. "We're here to do the right thing for the country and Saddam Hussein is not the right thing."

Liberal MP David Pratt is one backbencher who didn't stand and cheer in the House on Monday when Chr?tien announced his decision. Pratt agrees with the U.S. plan to get rid of Saddam.

"It's obviously not a popular position ? not with my own party, not within the Canadian public," he said.

And not being well received in Washington, either.

"We're disappointed that some of our closest allies, including Canada, do not agree on the urgent need for action," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Tuesday.

 

[deep]

The Bush administration's stated goal was regime change.

When disarmament came into discussion they believed Saddam would take the same stance he had in the past and all would agree he was in breach. Saddam's 'compliance' and destruction of al-saoud missiles furthur complicated the goal of regime change.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Yes, you raise a good point, and unfortunately it is true (IMO). However, the resolution did state that war would be exercised as a last resort.

 

[Dreadsox]

However, the resolution did state that war would be exercised as a last resort.

I am curious....what resolution are you reading. Having read 1441 numerous times the words "war" and "excercised as a last resort" do not appear. What resolution states that I do not know please provide me a link so I can read it.

Thanks!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I'm sorry. I didn't word that correctly. What I meant to say is that the resolution was passed with the understanding that war would be a last resort. That's why H. Clinton of all people was approving of it. It was understood that way (specifically, that military force would be used as a last resort, and only as a last resort).

 

[kobayashi]

i think all of 1441 or any other UN convention has been thrown out the window.

the US, at this point, can do whatever they want.

i do feel sorry for chretien. he was taken the middle road, not participating but not condemning american actions.

we have harper of the alliance and layton of the ndp each making a name for themselves by occupying positions at their appropriate poles: harper asking why we aren't in their with him and layton complimenting canada's stance but asking why we have not issued an outright condemnation.
its pure politiking.

 

[V Nura]

Very interesting...seeing as how the missiles they were launching at US troops this morning were banned under resolution 687.


He had 12 years to disarm and didn't get rid of his scuds?????



Disarmement working?...if you say so

 

[kobayashi]

while that is true arun, did/could anyone realistically expect 'full disarmament'?

is that not an unattainable goal?

 

[V Nura]

but still those were the terms of resolution 687.

realistic or not the UN passed it.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Arun, the disarmament process hadn't finished, but really that's beside the point. The point is much more fundamental: the US started this war by not seeking another UN resolution. That's the main issue. There wasn't enough of a diplomatic effort to build an amicable coalition. I simply think they went about it the wrong way, and many, many countries see it the same way. Bush keeps pointing out that they have, as he calls it, 35 countries backing him in the "coalition of the willing". I'm curious to know how many countries are against the war (in its current incarnation). I bet it's MUCH higher than 35.

 

[Angel]

I want to know who the 35 are.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Very interesting...seeing as how the missiles they were launching at US troops this morning were banned under resolution 687.
He had 12 years to disarm and didn't get rid of his scuds?????

I guess it is too early to assert the missiles fired on Kuwait were SCUDS. It's not a fact. Still to be confirmed. Those could be "permitted" missiles.

"Do not you think I am Saddam's lawyer"

 

[nbcrusader]

Very interesting...seeing as how the missiles they were launching at US troops this morning were banned under resolution 687.

He had 12 years to disarm and didn't get rid of his scuds?????

Disarmement working?...if you say so

Quite true. Banned Scud missles fired into Kuwait City. Using his illegal weapons against civilian targets. The only way Saddam would destroy such weapons is if he had better weapons to replace them.

 

[womanfish]

Actually there are 45 countries that are supporting the U.S. / U.K. /Spain led invasion. (Funny how the only one ever criticized is the U.S.) 30 nations that are listed and 15 that are unlisted, most of those unlisted are middle-east countries afraid of Saddam gassing them, but they are obvious (ie. Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc...)

DISARMAMENT WORKING!?!?!?!!? - You are out of your mind! The only time they even started to slightly disarm - and I do mean slightly, was when there were 250,000 troops starting to surround them! Inspections weren't working - threat of force was starting to work, but of course Saddam just destroying a few missles a week to keep people like you saying that things were going great. Laughable.

Almost as laughable as France's statement of "We'll come help if they use chemical or biological weapons" even though we have been spouting off for the last 4 months that they don't have them! The funniest part is that it was from FRENCH INTELLIGENCE that we found out they Iraqi souldiers had been given chemical, and maybe biological weapons to use and the go ahead to use them from Saddam. Yet Chirac still says we can't prove that they have them? THey aren't a threat? Good lord people are ridiculous.

 

[Angel]

(ie. Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc...)

Are you sure about Turkey? all I know is that they won't allow US troups in their country to position themselves along the Iraqi-Turkey border.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Angel, here are some of the countries who are supposedly with the US:

Denmark, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Slovenia, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ethiopia...

But first, read this interesting article...


A Coalition of the Willing?
From the Washington Post:

France and Germany lead European opposition to a speedy attack. But Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have firmly backed the U.S. position. On Wednesday, 10 more European governments, in the former communist east, jointly declared support for Washington. They were Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

A quick scan of opinion polls reveals that, while governments are supporting the US, the people are solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action in all but a few countries. This can be explained by diplomatic pressure which has, for now, overcome a distinct lack of popular support in the following countries:

Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time, 34% think that US and Britain have made a convincing case for invasion. ?

Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution ?

Italy: 72% opposed to war ?

Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now ?

Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances ?

Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances ?

Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US "politically" ?

Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate ?

Australia: 56 per cent only backed UN-sanctioned action, 12% support unilateral action. 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq. Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000 soldiers to US action. ?

The "Vilnius 10" is a group of 9 countries that are seeking membership in NATO and Croatia. In many cases, their future security depends on NATO membership. In Estonia, for example, there is a tangible fear that Russia will take over again, given a militaristic enough government and the right opportunity (the--thankfully past--popularity of the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a good indication of this possibility. Zhirinovsky had a map in his office showing the borders of Russia expanded to include the former Soviet Union and Alaska). In any case, it's doubtful that these governments are supporting the US for any other reason than to get diplomatic points (or conversely, not piss away their chances of NATO membership).

Taking Estonia as an example again, we find that the government has supported war without any debate in Parliament, despite 70% of the people and major newspapers opposed to war in Iraq.

Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force ?

Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour ?

Macedonia: 10% support war on Iraq ?

Bulgaria: 21% support war ?

Estonia: 30% support war ?

Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers ?

Information for Albania, Croatia, Slovenia and Lithuania was immediately available via Google news, but according to this report, Romania is the only country in the "Vilnius 10" that has a majority of the population supporting the war.

For comparison purposes:

France: 76% against war without UN support ?

Germany: 55% against war with UN support, 90% against war without UN support. 57% hold the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers". ?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Actually there are 45 countries that are supporting the U.S. / U.K. /Spain led invasion. (Funny how the only one ever criticized is the U.S.) 30 nations that are listed and 15 that are unlisted, most of those unlisted are middle-east countries afraid of Saddam gassing them, but they are obvious (ie. Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc...)

DISARMAMENT WORKING!?!?!?!!? - You are out of your mind! The only time they even started to slightly disarm - and I do mean slightly, was when there were 250,000 troops starting to surround them! Inspections weren't working - threat of force was starting to work, but of course Saddam just destroying a few missles a week to keep people like you saying that things were going great. Laughable.

Almost as laughable as France's statement of "We'll come help if they use chemical or biological weapons" even though we have been spouting off for the last 4 months that they don't have them! The funniest part is that it was from FRENCH INTELLIGENCE that we found out they Iraqi souldiers had been given chemical, and maybe biological weapons to use and the go ahead to use them from Saddam. Yet Chirac still says we can't prove that they have them? THey aren't a threat? Good lord people are ridiculous.

Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action. That was the point. To actually invade without another resolution and world backing is another story altogether.

 

[nbcrusader]

Are you sure about Turkey? all I know is that they won't allow US troups in their country to position themselves along the Iraqi-Turkey border.

Turkey has gven the US access to its airspace.

Add Poland to the list - they are sending 200 troops.

 

[Angel]

thx Michael. Interesting.......

I have to say though, that I am pretty ashamed of Canada right now. It's one thing to not support the war, but at least take a stance in some way. We are just sitting on the fence. Do we? Don't we? Will we? Won't we?
I don't want to live in Switzerland.
No one respects a country who can't take a position. We lack credibility now more than we ever did.

 

[womanfish]

Are you sure about Turkey? all I know is that they won't allow US troups in their country to position themselves along the Iraqi-Turkey border.

What Turkey has given support for is the ability to use their airspace which wasn't a sure thing a few weeks ago. They are in closed door sessions today discussing if we would be allowed to use ground space there. You have to remember. These people are terrified of Saddam, they know better than most what he has and is capable of. I don't blame them for not going in fully. But they definitely aren't against us. I would be afraid to since countries like France and Germany have said they wouldn't help Turkey if Turkey were attacked by Iraq, even though it's there duty as members of NATO.

 

[Angel]

I find this whole thing extremely interesting at the moment, from a political perspective.

 

[womanfish]

Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action. That was the point. To actually invade without another resolution and world backing is another story altogether.

Actually Michael, you misunderstood. I said he started to disarm SLIGHTLY. A few missles a week is a complete joke. Do you know what is unacounted for? Tons of VX Nerve gas, Tons of Anthrax, hundreds of missles to deliver these agents, and now new intelligence saying he has created a VX nerve paste which he plans to cover roads and bridges with.

Do you not remember that he has used these weapons in the past to kill his own people and the people of Kuwait and threatend use in Israel and Turkey? He is a madman that would never, ever give up these weapons. They are his power. Your mistake is that you assume he is a logical person that will say, ok - I may be killed or the innocent people of my country may be harmed if I don't hand over my weapons of destruction. Ha ha ha, He LOVES for his people to be killed. He's putting women and children up as human shields, He puts anti-aircraft guns on top of schools, apartments, and mosks.

Please don't think he is reasonable or would ever disarm without force. It just would never happen.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Hey, no problem Angel. Well, I personally think Cretien has taken a stand. He has stated he doesn't support a military strike without an okay by the UN security council (another resolution), and he's said that all along. I agree with him on that. He can't outright condemn the initiative, even if he wanted to, because there is no purpose for that. Politically, he has to be careful. The war was going to happen either way, regardless of his and Canada's position. He made the necessary precautions (there won't be any young Canadians getting their heads blown off for an ititiative that he felt should have been handled differently). I think, for once, he "did good".

 

[Basstrap]

The best point here is the issue of there being dozens of countires with tyrants at least as bad as saddam who, IMO, is not as big a threat as many.

it seems to me to be a selective thing. Why in the past have the US done business with dictorships or ignored tyrants and genocides and now they're choosing to dump over 100,000 soldiers and armored units and planes and everything in the weak iraq.
They could have saved a lot of money and just invaded on horseback brandishing swords.

 

[womanfish]

So Michael, you don't find it interesting that Iraqi troops are being supplied with chemical weapons, the very weapons they said they destroyed in 1991? That doesn't give you any pause for thought?

 

[Angel]

Politically, he has to be careful.

Indeed he does. But has he? I am not convinced. Look to the south Michael. Who are our neighbours?
I think it is our duty to be supportive of the US. Just my opinion and I totally respect yours, but I am not a fan of Chretien and I think his behaviour is weak and he is thinking along the lines of re-election, and popular opinion, not along the lines of what could potentially be better for our country in the long run.
He is been in power far too long. Our electoral system is borderline dictator creating. We need fresh blood making decisions on behave of our nation.

 

[Basstrap]

Now that the war has started I have no choice in my mind but to hope the americans win fast.
And, though I don't agree that any country has the right to invade another country unprovoked and change the regime I do agree that it will be a better place with saddam.
It bothers me, the whole forcing democracy on other countries...it rarely works.

okay...but I see no way in which this war could have been any bit beneficial for canada.
Going on the idea that there are dozens of countries like iraq, america must be therefore attacking iraq for their own security. Canada is not sufficiently threatened by iraq to attack them.

We'll help out the US after with humanitarian efforts. that is enough

 

[womanfish]

I agree Basstrap. It's hard for countries who are not in much of a threat terrorism-wise to feel an immediate threat from Iraq. If you notice, three of the four biggest supporters of the Iraq invasion have been targets of terrorism (U.S., U.K., Australia)

And with all that money your government has from your high taxes up there in Canada, I hope you come help rebuild.

 

[anitram]

It's one thing to not support the war, but at least take a stance in some way.

Which is exactly why I'll be voting for the NDP in the upcoming election.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Indeed he does. But has he? I am not convinced. Look to the south Michael. Who are our neighbours?
I think it is our duty to be supportive of the US. Just my opinion and I totally respect yours, but I am not a fan of Chretien and I think his behaviour is weak and he is thinking along the lines of re-election, and popular opinion, not along the lines of what could potentially be better for our country in the long run.
He is been in power far too long. Our electoral system is borderline dictator creating. We need fresh blood making decisions on behave of our nation.

Well, I think he has to balance his principles with his politics in that even if he is opposed to the Iraqi invasion (for whatever reasons, let's just say), he would still have to find the middle ground to utilize Canada's relationship with the US. I think Canada should be supportive of something only if we agree. According to recent polls, 75% of Canadians are against military action without the support of the UN. So, if you look at it that way, he's representing the public view in this case. Also, he's not doing so simply to get re-elected: he has already stated he's not running again. He's stepping down at the end of his term. Paul Martin, among others, are in the running for his replacement.

I think Cretien and Canada as a whole are here to support the US and other nations in a humanitarian respect. We will be there to help clean up damage, to help feed and clothe. I don't think we can support the way the war was carried through, but now that it has happened, we will be fully cooperative, I'm sure.