Machjo

Seeing how interrelated the world is today, that is pretty much what we need.

Good point. Though I was not officially polled for this myself, I too could see some legitimate grounds for invading Iraq on condition that it be done under UN command. By the way, I'd like to see Afghanistan be turned over to a UN mission too.

On the contrary. If UN Watch thought the UN irrelevant, it would not be encouraging the UN to live up to its own standards but rather trying to disband it altogether. Instead of pointing out how the UN is not living up to its standards and encouraging the UN to live up to them, it would be pointing out how the UN's own standards are corrupt and so ought not to even be put into effect. The UN is flawed; that does not make it irrelevant, but rather in need of reform. Heck, Canada is flawed too, so does that make it irrelevant, or simply in need of constant improvement like any other country?

Seeing that UN Watch uses the UN's own standards as a yardstick, this proves that UN Watch in fact acknowledges the UN's standards as at least reasonable, thus acknowledging its relevance. So if the UN is irrelevant, then why would UN Watch use the UN's own standards as a yardstick? That said, I applaud UN Watches efforts as I think they will help keep the UN more honest. The UU is far from perfect, but still a step forward from the League of Nations. Instead of disbanding it, how about improving it, or at least if it is to be disbanded, replaced with something better.

Saudi Arabia is a tax-free society, though it gets its income from the sale of crown resources, mainly if not exclusively gas. I'm not advocating an end to taxation here, and do see problems with relying exclusively on the sale of resources as the sole source of government income, but just to point out that it is possible, albeit likely not desirable seeing that this would likely lead to a mentality of drill bay drill all across Canada.

'A non-partisan party'. :lol:

So you think dishonesty in government and twofacedness is a good thing?

Well, if you're killing off the gene pool of an entire community, what do you call that? Sure I may be exaggerating there, but still, harming the reproductive organs of a large segment of an entire local community, to the degree that the local authorities have to advise that people no longer have children, is pretty alarming to say the least. Now as for Canada, it is involved in Afghanistan, and certainly if we should find alarming rates of cancer or birth defects, etc. compared to what would normally be considered normal, I'd strongly advise the Canadian government provide funding for an international objective study to find the cause, and if it should be found that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is partly to blame, then Canada ought to take responsibility and do all it can to make it right, by compensating affected families, cleaning up the local environment, publicly accepting responsibility, etc. Indeed.

So you think it's OK for Israel to violate international law because Hamas does so? I'd say it's not Ok for either to do so. But that's just me.

Perhaps. But if so, but either way, when local health authorities must advise women not to have children, that's pretty serious. Essentially, it's genocide. So will the US conduct research to find out why that has happened, and how it's happened?

I have come across people who will defend Hamas' violations of international law against Israel on the grounds that if Israel can do so, then why not Hamas? And I've come across many defending Israel's violations of international law against Palestinians on the same grounds. I say both sides are wrong and I'm also a 'Canucklehead'. go figure. In my view, two wrongs don't make a right. Israel's violations of international law are wrong regardless of what Hamas is doing. And Hamas' violations of human rights are wrong regardless of what Israel is doing. In the end, they are both wrong, and neither should wait for the other to abide by international law before it does. Instead, they should both be racing to be the first to abide by international laws. The first to do so will win the moral war, after which the second would quickly feel the heat. The problem is there are too many on both sides defending the illegal acts of their favorite side.

Oops!

I think this is precisely the issue. Most agree that Hamas ought to abide by international law, such such threads really become a non-issue, preaching to the quire so to speak. The reason Israel threads abound though is because so many actually defend Israel's right to defy international law, usually on ostentatiously religious grounds which in reality have no foundation in religion but rather in blind nationalism. Certainly to be fair, all ought to abide by the same rules of international law, no? So just as we must applaud any critical report on Hamas violating international law, so we must do the same for Israel if we are in fact fair and balanced. Unfortunately though that's seldom the case.

And as for the spike in cancer rates and birth defects in Iraq at least, I'm sure for many Iraqis thinking of having children, it is a serious issue. They will notice the spike or read about it in the newspapers, and then start thinking, what if I've been exposed. You're likely to find a sharp drop in births in Iraq in the next few decades resulting from this fear. but then who will take care of the elderly? The US sure as hell won't. It would seem to me that this is a pressing matter.

The UK is still finding unexploded ordnances from WWII buried under its soil on occasion. In fact I think just a few months ago a WWII bomb exploded in a suburb. I can't remember about injuries, but either way, you get the point. Look at how the US is helping Vietnam clean up the mess the US left behind. My guess is it will help Iraq and Afghanistan just as much. And what about Canada? Do we keep track of where our rounds go, etc. so that we can in fact clean up properly before we leave? Or again, will we just abandon explosive rounds for kids to play and maim themselves with?

Sorry. Then let me clarify. Of course international law ought to be only the minimum standard, yest sometimes Canada does not even meet that most bare minimum of standards. But I do agree with you that beyond that, as I'd pointed out in a previous post, law or no law, Canada should be prohibited from selling products it bans on its own soil, and certainly even products it does allow but only under the most stringent of circumstances ought to meet the same standards abroad. Quite simply, would we tolerate the RCMP using DU-tipped rounds for their pistols? If the answer is no, then how can we tolerate such a product being scattered by the ton across a foreign land without it being under any control. It's ust left to float around in the environment for anyone to handle. If we would not tolerate that on our own soil, then we should not tolerate it abroad. On that front, law or no law, we should ban the selling of DU to any country that uses it so maliciously. I fully agree with you on that.

Of course I was being tongue in cheek there, but not totally. It's clear from the video that the DOD considers DU to be highly hazardous without the proper training, yet DU rounds are allowed ot scatter the civilian landscape. If the DOD thinks soldiers need such training to handle DU, then how can it expose the general population to DU without also warning it not to play with such rounds. Let's face it, a kid who sees a DU round lying on the ground might think it's cool, keep it as a souvenir, wash it, play with it, make a whistle out of it, etc. Some kids might approach bombed out Iraqi tanks filled with DUst, thinking them cool and wanting to play on them. Buildings filled with DU shrapnel might be torn down,with DUst washing away into the air and water supply, etc. Have we not considered these things before using such dangerous weapons? US soldiers might be trained to handle such weapons, but clearly the average child in Iraq is not.

I'm not denying Canada' possible complicity. And indeed if Canada has violated any international laws, it ought to be taken to task to the fullest extent of international law. And as mentioned in a post above, Canada ought to stop playing both sides of the fence. I won't deny that it does in fact do that, and is certainly engaged in hypocrisy. When did I ever deny this?

But why don't Iraqi children get the same training as US troops in dealing with all the DU all over their country?

Riiight. Morning in a typical primary school in Iraq: Good morning class. I hope you enjoy your first day of school. Now let's begin kids. First off, who here plays with little pieces of metal you find lying on the ground now and then? Oh, many hands up. Do you have a permit to play with these pieces of metal? Do you get the proper training while in kindergarten? And if you do decide to play with anything you find on the ground, make sure it's covered in thick acrylic or epoxy coating, to avoid shedding of dust granules, and get your toys tested annually, and make sure you are always wearing gloves whenever playing in the fields outside. If you do that, you'll be safe; nothing to worry about. Now tomorrow, I'll teach you how to write the letter 'alif'. Oh come on now. If you give those Iraqi kindergarten kids the same rigorous training US troops get in the handling of DU, it should be safe. Here's a video US troops are to watch during training: Why couldn't Iraqi children learn this? And use those protective suits you see in the video as the standard school uniform. How cool.

There are abandoned Iraqi tanks lying out in the open that were attacked by DU munitions. On impact they do create dust, these tanks are still highly radioactive, and they're lying out in the open to any uneducated and curious passer by who knows little to nothing of radiation to approach it out of natural curiosity. DU materials are still lying around in Baghdad of all places, with children playing with them. Some building struck by DU munitions had been torn down in Fallujah, and apparently some of them landed in the water, possibly allowing some DUst making it downstream into the drinking water supply. Etc. etc. etc. Whe're talking about well over 300 tons of Du having been scattered indiscriminately all over Iraq! It's bound to make it into the local population sooner or later. The chemical toxicity is on top of the radiological effects. And as for the particles, can you be sure that the wind did not blow them into the air miles away from their original location or even into the water supply? Well over 300 tons is a lot of DU lying around or floating around depending on its composition. Then how do you explain that authorities in Fallujah are now advising women to not have children?! Clearly there is concern of an epidemic of reproductive organs having been damaged among the local population. Granted it's not been conclusively proven that it's because of DU, but so far the symptoms appear to match the effects of radiation. At the very least we owe them further studies and research to determine what the cause is. Clearly this is something that happened after Saddam's regime, whatever it may be.

But it would have to be real life studies. Send them off to Iraq to drink the local water, eat the local food, breathe the local air. Do that for a few years, bring them back, and then test for DU in their bones.

And add to that that supposedly in Fallujah at lest, they suspect that much DU has gotten into their water supply. After all, with the US having used over 300 tons of DU all over Iraq, especially Fallujah, it's a reasonable possibility. And seeing that Iraq has little water to begin with, it finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place here. In fact, authorities in Fallujah have already advised local women no longer have children! They have not yet proven a link between DU, other chemicals, and all the birth defects in that city, but they do know that birth defects have shot through the roof in recent years. So whatever the reason for this increase, there's clearly something going on that was not happening prior to the US invasion of Iraq, or at least Fallujah in this case. Though cancer rates and defects have risen across Iraq.

Personally, I do agree that Canada ought to take responsibility for its actions. Again, I don't know if it has violated international laws on these fronts but if it has, then definitely the law should be enforced and Canada should pay the price. And international law or not: 1. Any product Canada bans on its own soil it should ban for export. To do otherwise is immoral and hypocritical. 2. Canada should pull out of NATO and follow the Swedish policy of 'involved neutrality' as UN peace-keepers only unless explicitly requested by the UN to take aggressive action against a belligerent state and even then only in compliance with international law. 3. Set an example by abiding by all other international laws that might apply to us.

I agree. Again, I don;t know the specifics of what international laws say on this, but if Canada is in violation of any international law with regards our export of asbestos, then definitely we ought to comply with them and take responsibility for any violations on our part. Again, I don't know what international laws say on this, but I'm just saying if.