Jump to content

Lessons From Iraq


Recommended Posts

Canada in 2004 with a new PM has a chance to start to grow up. It is high time that the country progress past the 12 year old mentality level and start to display some characteristics of adulthood if not, then at least adolescence would be welcomed.

Besides a long list of domestic reforms [Parliament, Economic, Internal Free trade, no Regional subsidies etc.], we need a foreign policy and military policy that matches our economic and population size.

Witness Iraq and the litany of tearful pre war pronouncements from ninnies in the Canadian Media. All of which failed to pass.

Much as Bernard Lewis predicted, in short, respect for America has only increased with this demonstration of strength and purpose. The invasion and its aftermath have gone far toward purging the ghosts of Beirut and Mogadishu, which Osama bin Laden spun into legends of American weakness. As destructive as they are, the truck bombs in Iraq are only strategically notable because this time they are not driving the U.S. home. Much still depends on the kind of Iraqi government that emerges in 2004 and beyond, but the mere possibility that a democratic Arab and Islamic state might exist is already reshaping the region.

Another global benefit of the war is the end of illusions about the United Nations and a certain kind of "multilateralism." The U.N. couldn't enforce its own resolutions before the war, and afterward it fled Iraq the first time it was targeted by terrorists. The latter was a special insult to the brave U.N. officials who died trying to rebuild Iraq.

The lesson of Iraq, as before in Kosovo, is that only the U.S. has the political will and military means to defeat global threats. American Presidents in the future will likewise have to build coalitions on an ad hoc basis, often working around a U.N. Security Council obstructed by France.

Martin and Canada should take note of this - the US will go it alone - and supporting what is right, does not mitigate a country's sovereignty - in fact it enhances it.

Canada has a choice - either grow up and join the adult nations and embark on serious reforms with serious purposes - or pretend that reality is relative and that Canadian Idol, the CBC and HNIC is all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada in 2004 with a new PM has a chance to start to grow up. It is high time that the country progress past the 12 year old mentality level and start to display some characteristics of adulthood if not, then at least adolescence would be welcomed.

Don't you realize that one's credibility is hurt if they start an argument with petulant insults ?

Just make your points.

The lesson of Iraq, as before in Kosovo, is that only the U.S. has the political will and military means to defeat global threats.

Those threats which it chooses to address, you mean.

Martin and Canada should take note of this - the US will go it alone - and supporting what is right, does not mitigate a country's sovereignty - in fact it enhances it.

Canada has a choice - either grow up and join the adult nations and embark on serious reforms with serious purposes - or pretend that reality is relative and that Canadian Idol, the CBC and HNIC is all that matters.

Open with insults, close with insults.

World politics involves more than just listening to what the US president says and following. There are many hotspots, many despots in the world. If the US, being the only superpower, is going to set the agenda then fine - might makes right. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's some kind of higher ideal behind this.

The US's biggest allies in the middle east are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Its biggest trading partner is China.

Where would you rather live - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China or France ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well in some posts someone called Martin, Paul Chretien. How true it is. Canada it appears will not dissociate itself from the corrupt UNO. Peter Foster in the NP wrote a very good article on Martin inviting Annan to be the first foreign dignitary to speak in Canada.

This is revolting.

Annan and the UNO represent nothing but socialised engineering and immoral politics and economics, as Foster describes in reference to Annan:

The Tribunal, which is based in Tanzania has a staff of 800 and an annual budget of nearly U$100 million...So far 10 years after the most appalling massacres of modern times - only a handful of cases have been tried.....Dallaire received warnings about the impending massacre and passed them on to his superiors....the head of UN peacekeeping was Annan.  Mr. Annan did nothing.

Mr. Annan also made sure that the UNO stole $21 billion from Iraq during the 1990s -by Claudia Rosett in an op ed piece, Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

The process is simple. Iraq contracts to import goods, and the U.N. gives the outside vendors cash collected from the oil sales. The U.N. has approved about $34 billion in such deals so far. The money it hasn't yet doled out--at least $21 billion--sits in U.N.-administered bank accounts. U.N. officials refuse to divulge much information about these accounts--not even the countries in which they're held.

Measured in dollars, this is by far the U.N.'s largest program. The sums involved are large enough--and their handling has been perverse enough--for this program to deserve more attention than it has so far received.

Conceived in 1995 as a way to deliver humanitarian aid despite sanctions against Iraq, Oil-for-Food has matured into an unholy union between Saddam Hussein, with his command economy, and the U.N., with its big, buck-passing bureaucracy. By now, the two are effectively partners in what might just as well be called the Oil-for-U.N.-Jobs program. Even with its weapons inspectors barred from the country, the U.N. by now has 10 agencies employing 900 international staffers and 3,000 Iraqi nationals inside Iraq to administer the program, plus another 120 or so in New York. Combining Iraq's oil exports and aid imports, they oversee a flow of funds averaging about $15 billion a year, more than five times the U.N.'s core annual budget. Even assuming the utmost integrity by the U.N. staff, it is worth asking whether Mr. Annan and his entourage might by now have a stake in the status quo. In which case, listening to Mr. Annan's views on Iraq makes about as much sense as once upon a time heeding Arthur Andersen's pronouncements on Enron.

Making this picture all the more Enron-like is the extent to which Mr. Annan and his crew have winked at Iraq's gross violations of U.N. agreements, and not only on weapons inspections. The U.N. sanctions on Iraqi oil sales were meant to stop Saddam from diverting oil revenues to his own uses. Instead, they provide a facde of control that is dangerously misleading. Saddam has been getting around the sanctions via surcharge-kickback deals and flat-out smuggling, to the tune of $3 billion a year, according to the dossier released yesterday by Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Back in May, The Wall Street Journal's Alix Freedman and Steve Stecklow gave a thoroughly documented account of how Iraq "has imposed illegal surcharges on every barrel of oil it has sold, using a maze of intermediaries to cover its tracks." Last week, the Washington-based Coalition for International Justice released an exhaustively researched 70-page report, detailing Saddam's dodges and how this year alone, despite "smarter" U.N. sanctions, he will rake in billions for his "personal treasury." When President Bush on Sept. 12 addressed the U.N., he charged that Saddam has "subverted" Oil-for-Food, "working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials."

So this is the man and the group that Paul Martin wants Canada to listen too.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rasputin:

The situation at the UN is probably better explained by bungling than outright theft. I can imagine that such a large organization is almost impossible to manage. That is not to say that the UN should be forgiven for its ineptitude but it's rather extreme to say that it should be abandoned. Let me quote from one of our world leaders on the importance of the UN:

Since October 24, 1945, the United Nations Organization has grown to include 191 member states. Through its relief agencies, the U.N. aids and protects millions of refugees and displaced persons worldwide. For example, in 2001, the United Nations World Food Program provided aid to 77 million people in 82 countries and helped to avert a severe famine that threatened Afghanistan. The U.N. also seeks to improve living conditions around the globe by immunizing children, providing safe drinking water, and fighting disease.

...

As our world faces new challenges and opportunities, the efforts of the United Nations take on a renewed significance.

Now, which world leader was it that proclaimed praise for the UN and its role in helping the world's most poor and desparate people ?

Jean Chretien ? Paul Martin ? Jacques Chirac ? Fidel Castro ? No...

Proclamation by George W. Bush on the United Nations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UNO is no role model, neither is Annan. Why is Martin INVITING Annan as the first dignitary ? Why is Martin not repairing our foreign policy with real change instead of papermache rhetoric and associated post modern talk from the UNO ?

Annan blames the Western world for most of its ills [see his speech in Davos]. As Peter Foster Jan 24th NP explains, he does not believe in freedom, private property or that the poor nations of the world must organise themselves. He believes that the UNO model must be the world model. He himself is a career bureaucrat that directly shuffled paper instead of acting in Central Africa, thereby killing indirectly 1 million people. Ask Dallaire if Annan is worth emulating.

The answer is no.

Neither should he be speaking in our Parliament. A grotesque message if ever one could be sent, and just more proof that Martin and his Liberal friends will do little to improve Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh, in the last two days;

david kay has said he doesnt think wmd exists in iraq. he says in his opinion stockpiles will never be found and they have not existed post 1991

colin powell said its possible they never existed at all based on recent seachs, and he doesnt know why US intelligence wouldnt know this.

both are well documented on the major news sources.

so who needs to grow up?

the US LIED to the world over a very serious issue. not only will this destroy the credibility of the US on worthwhite future ploblems, it will hamper any international efforts on WMD and humanitarian issues. not only that, but other nations now have an example of warmongering under a guise of preventative self defence. russia and chechnya, china and taiwan. the US is going to have a hard time lecturing people after this iraq lie. china can just say they have evidence of radical US funded elements in taiwan, but of course, it doesnt need proof that stands up to scrutiny.

the US lies about WMD in iraq, which were clearly a front for 1) post 9/11 fear therapy, 2) influence of the oil region, and 3) implimentation of neo-con strategic pax-americana military philosophy, are the most disgusting example of war mongering seen since vietnam. all UN nations should get together and put economic sanctions on teh US. let americans suffer by the international community for a change instead of taking advantage of it.

the US is a rough nation which has lied about the most important of principles of the international community. they cannot be trusted as such, and Canada has been proven 100% right as we can see the lies about WMD falling apart. we would be war criminals if we were occupying iraq under false pretense right now.

sirriff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting, the people who are against Martin and the liberals are also the ones who want war, Well in Britain their version of the liberals, labour party, said yes and went, now the conservatives are just using this against them. If Chretien had of gone it would be the same thing here. It was a well thought out political move to stay out.

Had we have gone our military would be in even worse shape, also providing more to the fire for the conservatives who oppose the liberals, more just to argue than for good cause at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Riff and Commie boy, you missed the essentials of the post:

1. Martin is not very smart in asking Annan - a man with a very shady background - to come lecture us on our responsibilities in the world.

2. Martin should be repairing foreign policy, the military and initiating economic reform not embracing world wide socialism.

3. The UNO has many failings and is hardly a role model for Canada.

That was the thrust of the post. Iraq etc.is dealt in other threads, please address your ideas on those issues in those threads.

Many people already suggest that Chretien = Martin and vice versa.

To my mind asking Annan to give an address in our Parliament confirms their worst fears.

What do you say to that ?

As Peter Foster Jan 24th NP explains, he does not believe in freedom, private property or that the poor nations of the world must organise themselves. He believes that the UNO model must be the world model. He himself is a career bureaucrat that directly shuffled paper instead of acting in Central Africa, thereby killing indirectly 1 million people. Ask Dallaire if Annan is worth emulating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin is not very smart in asking Annan - a man with a very shady background

Rasputin:

This is an extreme, and I think irresponsible accusation. As I have posted, the UN is a large organization which is doubtlessly difficult to manage.

Mr. Annan is a praiseworthy leader. As evidence, I provide you this Voice of America article:

Voice of America

Mr. Bush praised Mr. Annan as a "great partner." "Mr. Secretary-General, I appreciate the many times we have spoken, particularly over the last two months," he said. "These have been difficult and challenging days for my nation and I have benefited from your wisdom, your vision, your resolve and optimism."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should leave the UN completely, move unilaterally, invade whoever we want without the use of diplomacy first, of course this would reduce our foriegn affairs requirements, and we could build the military until it could crush even america. :lol:

Hmm... lets see if there are any problems with that. Oh, I dont know the term WW2 comes to mind. <_<

And about economic reform, building the military and foriegn policy, your comment that we should move away from socialism makes a little sense, until once again you remeber WW2. The great depression hits the world, major affect in capitalist countries, very little in Communist countries, btw, Then the National Socialists take charge in Germany. They immediatly up the military and repair the economy. With the combo of their foreign policy and military they practicaly forced the world into submission.

Kinda sounds like a Socialist country can have a strong military, and a strong economy to drive the military.

Hows that for "focussing" on this topic??? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, come on - Annan a praise worthy leader ? You quote some diplomatic mumbo jumbo from Bush. Bush has to say that - the US was the nation that wanted Annan in power to replace Boutros-Ghali. You know why ? Annan promised reforms and financial audits and financial streamlining. He delivered on none of them. Foster makes a damning indictment of Annan in Rwanda - what proof do you have that he is an enlightened leader ?

1. Central African wars under Annan killed 1 million.

2. Annan and the UN made $21 billion off of Iraq while 300-500.000 civilians were killed.

A noble leader ? No thanks - if that is your definition of a good leader, then you are as delirious as Martin-Chretien.

As for Commie boy, you said

And about economic reform, building the military and foriegn policy, your comment that we should move away from socialism makes a little sense, until once again you remeber WW2. The great depression hits the world, major affect in capitalist countries, very little in Communist countries

Gov't policy caused the Great Depression which occured 2 years after the Stock market crash. Greenspan himself published a paper on this in 1961. The Gov't restricted money supply, interest rates went up and trade barriers went up. BTW at the same time in Communist Russia 10 million Ukrainians were dying from famine and purges. Stalin during the 30s starved to death about 15 million people it is estimated.

Good system though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, come on - Annan a praise worthy leader ? You quote some diplomatic mumbo jumbo from Bush. Bush has to say that - the US was the nation that wanted Annan in power to replace Boutros-Ghali. You know why ? Annan promised reforms and financial audits and financial streamlining. He delivered on none of them. Foster makes a damning indictment of Annan in Rwanda - what proof do you have that he is an enlightened leader ?

I didn't say he was enlightened or noble. I don't know him personally. I said he was praiseworthy, as evidenced by GWB's statement.

I'm sure Annan would like to do better with the financial situation at the UN - just as GWB would like to do better with his deficit.

But there's a wide gulf between "shady" and "noble". I don't think you should call him "shady" based on his failings. I wouldn't call GWB "shady" based on HIS fiscal record.

Good system though.

The Marxists and the Alliance members I know both like to claim that their systems have never been tried and are thus not tainted by failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marxism never tried ??? What do you call Leninism ? Marxism is state ownership by a party for the interests of the people - supposedly. It is just another flag for a dictatorship - where the state and party are one. In that sense it is no different than Fascism - Nazi Germany was another example of crude Marxism at work - free education, free health care and gov't controlling most of the economy. It also was an economic mess, and war was the only way out. According to Paul Johnson in Intellectuals, Marx made up his economic numbers from British stats and lied about the implications of the Industrial Revolution. Given the incoherence of Marxian economics this is probable. Marxism is indefensible at any and all levels.

I have never heard anyone from the Alliance state that 'their' system - whatever that is - has not been tried.

Please provide proof of both statements.

The CA believes in smaller gov't not anarchy, and freer trade. The repeal of the Corn Laws in Britain in 1842 until about 1860 provided an arena of free trade, until both the US and Germany began erecting trade barriers. The WTO system has reduced trade barriers to on average 5 % for manufactured goods. World prosperity has blossomed as a result and GDP growth as well as financial flows have accelerated.

I don't think think you have a clear grasp of what is Marxism or what the CA policy is.

Maybe review the CA website before you post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marxism never tried ??? What do you call Leninism ? Marxism is state ownership by a party for the interests of the people - supposedly. It is just another flag for a dictatorship - where the state and party are one. In that sense it is no different than Fascism - Nazi Germany was another example of crude Marxism at work - free education, free health care and gov't controlling most of the economy. It also was an economic mess, and war was the only way out. According to Paul Johnson in Intellectuals, Marx made up his economic numbers from British stats and lied about the implications of the Industrial Revolution. Given the incoherence of Marxian economics this is probable. Marxism is indefensible at any and all levels.

Marx never intended the state to be imposed by force. This, like income taxes, was supposed to be a temporary measure. The state was to wither away.

I have never heard anyone from the Alliance state that 'their' system - whatever that is - has not been tried.

Please provide proof of both statements.

How can I prove what my Alliance friends have said ?

The CA believes in smaller gov't not anarchy, and freer trade. The repeal of the Corn Laws in Britain in 1842 until about 1860 provided an arena of free trade, until both the US and Germany began erecting trade barriers. The WTO system has reduced trade barriers to on average 5 % for manufactured goods. World prosperity has blossomed as a result and GDP growth as well as financial flows have accelerated.

I don't think think you have a clear grasp of what is Marxism or what the CA policy is.

Maybe review the CA website before you post.

Ok - I'll reword it for you - the system of smaller government and social conservativism in our federal government hasn't been tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your point on smaller gov't. Early 20th century gov't was 5-10 % of GDP. Thanks to the European civil war and the keynesianism that permeated post war expectations Gov't ballooned. War economies were thought transferable to peace time economies ie. central planning. The concept was that if military styled governance can defeat Fascism it should be employed to combat unemployment, and 30s style economic failure. The fact that gov'ts caused the depression was lost on everyone including Keynes whose theories have been falsified over a 50 year period.

You don't manage demand.

So yes Canada has tried smaller gov't - the question for the CA is - can it convince Cdns that smaller is better ?

The CA is right - but i doubt Canada will listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your point on smaller gov't. Early 20th century gov't was 5-10 % of GDP. Thanks to the European civil war and the keynesianism that permeated post war expectations Gov't ballooned. War economies were thought transferable to peace time economies ie. central planning. The concept was that if military styled governance can defeat Fascism it should be employed to combat unemployment, and 30s style economic failure. The fact that gov'ts caused the depression was lost on everyone including Keynes whose theories have been falsified over a 50 year period.

You don't manage demand.

So yes Canada has tried smaller gov't - the question for the CA is - can it convince Cdns that smaller is better ?

The CA is right - but i doubt Canada will listen.

If what your saying is right, then the CPC should immediately start trumpeting their policy as a call for a return to the economics of the 1920s.

This is a time before universal healthcare, wage protections, unionization, consumer protection, etc. existed.

I'd say that you are honest in your summation but I'd also say that few Canadians would agree to return to this dark period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...