Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
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.
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.
Last edited: