U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   Disarmament Was Working... (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/disarmament-was-working-74278.html)

Michael Griffiths 03-19-2003 07:13 PM

Disarmament Was Working...
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: Chrétien
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 Chrétien 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 Chrétien'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 Chrétien 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 03-19-2003 07:27 PM

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 03-19-2003 07:34 PM

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 03-19-2003 09:36 PM


Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
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.


Michael Griffiths 03-19-2003 10:08 PM

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 03-20-2003 08:07 AM

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 03-20-2003 08:15 AM

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 03-20-2003 08:46 AM

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

is that not an unattainable goal?

V Nura 03-20-2003 09:06 AM

but still those were the terms of resolution 687.

realistic or not the UN passed it.

Michael Griffiths 03-20-2003 11:12 AM

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 03-20-2003 11:18 AM

I want to know who the 35 are. :|

ALEXRUS 03-20-2003 11:28 AM


Originally posted by Arun V
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":eeklaugh:

nbcrusader 03-20-2003 11:37 AM


Originally posted by Arun V
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 03-20-2003 11:51 AM

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 03-20-2003 11:53 AM


Originally posted by womanfish
(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.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com