Is it unpatroitic to critize the US?

[idealisttotheend]

Harper says Matin ad breaks down co-operation with US vis a vie security

I find this story interesting. It seems to me that is becoming somehow wrong to criticize the US for any reason. I have not seen this ad but according to the story all Martin says is that ""We want to be different. We don't want to be American, we want to be Canadians ...." This is hardly rampant anti-Americanism or unprincipled criticism. In fact it is not criticism at all. Of course the Liberals are attacking Harper on being pro war which is implied critics but I see no reason why it is in any way unacceptable. In fact (to reveal my own bias on the matter) I think it is necessary for us to have our own foreign policy and to, respectfully, criticize the US as necessary.

1) Mr. Harper is the same man that launched a lawsuit against the government for the bill to restrict third party advertising as he felt it was a restriction on free speech. Now he says ads should be "immediately withdrawn" because they suggest Canada should be and remain different from America? Free speech only when it suits Mr. Harper?

2) If we restrict our constructive criticisms of the US based on the threat of terrorism, do we not give the terrorists power?

3) Is it not necessary for Canada to remain different from the US? The US was a good idea, it still is in some respects . But can we not take the best of the US and the best of several other countries and forge our own destiny? Is the American system best, the Ideal?

4) Are we economically capable of criticizing the US given the threat of protectionism on their part (and is this what Mr. Harper is really worried about)?

[August1991]

Harper's words (from your source):

"We don't want to say pejorative things about the United States. It's not helpful to this country. It's an election about Canada. Let's just get that stuff out of the game."

Look, it's an election. Martin wants to portray Harper as an American because that gains votes among anti-Americans. Harper is defending himself by saying he's Canadian running in an election about Canada.

Fair dinkums.

As to your other points, the anti-American slant to some forms of Canadian nationalism is ugly and small-minded.

To understand it best, an English-Canadian nationalist should come to Quebec and realize that many of the ignorant nationalists here will treat or think of you exactly the same way you treat or think of Americans. (At the same time, you may well meet fawning federalists here who will excuse your every faux-pas. They're dangerous.)

Best of all, you will meet some genuine separatists or federalists, proud of Quebec, who will accept you for what you probably are - a good-hearted, fair-minded "Canadian".

This knee-jerk, anti-Americanism makes us a small people. And frankly, I don't really think it's representative of most English Canadians.

[Black Dog]

Nationalism, as a rule, is foolishness. It breeds chauvanism, arrogance and a sense of entitlement.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Dunno who said that, but it was someone who knew what they were talking about.

[idealisttotheend]

Harper is defending himself by saying he's Canadian running in an election about Canada.

Okay. But to define who we are, we invariably have to define who we are not (see Gwen, Nationalism without walls ). There is a lot of pressure on us to become more like (or flat out to become) the Americans. Ever heard Harper defend the war? He rarely does it in terms of it's objectives but in terms of our 'need' to 'cooperate' with the Americans. It has been stated in this forum that the Canada/US relationship is our most important relationship as such it is an election issue.

This knee-jerk, anti-Americanism makes us a small people.

This is a vast and unjustified oversimplification of my arguments.

And frankly, I don't really think it's representative of most English Canadians.

'English Canada,' should it exist, is different from Quebec though in that we have little of our own culture. Most of it comes from the States and so "anti-Americanism" is, among many other things, a self defence mechanism. Culture is vastly underrated but it is the essential component of any society. It defines thoughts and beliefs and I think accounts for the majority of non-economic "anti-Americanism" in English Canada. "We" don't have a separate language and so no natural defence barrier.

I would also say that my arguments are not "anti-American" as such. I criticize many elements of American foreign policy, some domestic/economic policy and think our system of governance is generally better. That doesn't mean I have anything against Americans as individuals or that I disagree with everything America is and does. Criticism is the essential element of democracy and one of my main complaints about America recently is that there are powerful elements in America trying to use undemocratic methods to squelch criticism.

Nationalism, as a rule, is foolishness. It breeds chauvinism, arrogance and a sense of entitlement.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. People need something to believe. With the demise of organized religion as the main belief system in the Western world, people are searching for something else. More often than not they find it in the free market and in the badges of status it offers. But why not Canada?

Why can't people believe in a country that represents diversity, tolerance, democracy, working together, respect for all members of society etc. My nationalism is not blind, if Canada invades Zimbabwe tomorrow I will not support that decision. But if we cannot be nationalistic are we not in danger of losing the Canada we know all together? Who will defend it?

[takeanumber]

No, it is not unpatriotic to critique the US policy options and values.

It's our right to free speech. And I support that right.

[idealisttotheend]

Exactly.

(There now how's that for a short post.)

(Love all your posts takeanumber, very witty)

[Argus]

Harper is defending himself by saying he's Canadian running in an election about Canada.

Okay. But to define who we are, we invariably have to define who we are not (see Gwen, Nationalism without walls ). There is a lot of pressure on us to become more like (or flat out to become) the Americans.

And if I describe who were are not by comparing ourselves to Arabs how will you like that?

As for his so-called pressure to be like Americans, just where is it coming from? Because I haven't seen it.

Ever heard Harper defend the war?  He rarely does it in terms of it's objectives but in terms of our 'need' to 'cooperate' with the Americans.

What he has said, I believe, is that America is our friend and ally, and if we are going to choose a side to be on it ought to be theres unless there is a damned good reason why we shouldn't be.

This knee-jerk, anti-Americanism makes us a small people.

This is a vast and unjustified oversimplification of my arguments.

Perhaps, but a perfectly adequate description of much of the small-minded, often ideologically or nationalistically based anti-Americanism I see.

And frankly, I don't really think it's representative of most English Canadians.

'English Canada,' should it exist,

Do you even realize how insulting it is for you to question the existence of Canada outside Quebec? I occasionally run into this sanctimonious defence of Quebecois and their lovely culture combined with a contemptuous dismissal that Canada outside Quebec even has a culture. When made by anyone other than a Quebecer it usually strikes me as the product of the extreme end of that cliched Canadian lack of confidence (We're a world class city! Really we are!).

is different from Quebec though in that we have little of our own culture.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? If you've so distanced yourself from what it means to be a Canadian that you can't understand what it is about being Canadian which seperates us from other people then you really have little business commenting on cultural matters.

Why can't people believe in a country that represents diversity, tolerance, democracy, working together, respect for all members of society etc.

Because it's extraordinaily arrogant of you to believe that other societies don't have the same thing going for them. Do you think America doesn't also stand for diversity, respect, tolerance and democracy? Sweden? England?

[idealisttotheend]

And if I describe who were are not by comparing ourselves to Arabs how will you like that?

I would like it fine, please do (what is your point).

What he has said, I believe, is that America is our friend and ally, and if we are going to choose a side to be on it ought to be theres unless there is a damned good reason why we shouldn't be.

Well, choose a side against whom exactly? Against Bin Laden? He is a mass murderer and I think we already are against people like his ilk. Perhaps the fallacy is to allow ourselves to be drawn into believing it is a question of sides. That will be both our and America's downfall.

Do you even realize how insulting it is for you to question the existence of Canada outside Quebec?

That was not my intention at all. I question only the supposistion that 'English Canada' is some sort of culturally homogenous entity. I don't think 'English Canada' exists actually, but I surely think that Canada outside Quebec exists. My question is whether an ethnic chinese Canadian in the lower mainland of BC has more in common with a fisherman in Newfoundland (who speaks english) than a french Canadian in Trois Riveriers.

If you've so distanced yourself from what it means to be a Canadian that you can't understand what it is about being Canadian which seperates us from other people then you really have little business commenting on cultural matters.

Carleton article regarding culture

Only 20% of poll respondants feel Canada has a seperate culture

For a Canadian version of manifest destiny click here

From a competing "community"

Most of our culture (defined as a product) comes from the U. S. Period. If you don't believe me turn on your TV or pick up a magazine at the newsstand. None of the above arguments are new in fact they're so old they're cliche.

Because it's extraordinaily arrogant of you to believe that other societies don't have the same thing going for them. Do you think America doesn't also stand for diversity, respect, tolerance and democracy? Sweden? England?

Point taken, sort of. I guess I defend our own unique mix of these things and hope that we can be the best at all of them and that we keep trying until we are. But you are right in a way.

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't think it is unpatriotic to critize the US. However, I have seen so much of it in Canada the last few years, that I find it distressing. Maybe it is people copying Chretien's government who certainly came across as anti-American. I still remember that minister calling Americans "bastards" in front of the TV cameras.

It was also embarrassing that Chretien refused to help the coalition when Saddam repeatedly broke the ceasefire agreement. Chretien greedily put his daughter and son-in-law's money interests first. Chretien's family was taking blood money from Saddam while the Iraqi people were being robbed and killed on a daily basis.

Another achievement of the Chretien government was to turn our country - whose armed forces once stormed an entire beach at Normandy and fielded one of the most heroic armies in wars for freedom - into a bastion of anti-Americanism without a military.

Not to nitpick, but Harper never said the ads should be "immediately withdrawn".

It almost looks like Martin is trying the Gerhard Schroder election tactic. Schroder was in trouble, but used anti-Americanism to whip up support for himself and get elected. But look at his support now and Germany's economic problems.

That is disappointing. I was hoping Martin would try and heal the damage that Chretien caused with the USA. He said that was one of the main things he planned on doing.

Martin should remember that if the Americans ever made trade difficult for us in the US market - it would hurt us badly.

[Reverend Blair]

I think we need to keep in mind that before Bush came to power Canada, and the Chretien government, had a pretty good rapport with the US and the Clinton administration.

It was Bush's policiies of isolationism and unilateralism that led to the conflict between the US and Canada and the friction between the Chretien government and the Bush admistration.

Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded. They lied to the UN (and the American people) about evidence. They continue to break international law now that the invasion is over and the occupation has begun.

Backing the US up, or even failing to criticise them, when they act against the wishes and, arguably, the best interests of the world community is not good for Canada. It makes appear to be nothing more than a satellite state in the eyes of the world.

Not only is it not unpatriotic to criticise the actions of the US, such criticisms are an act of patriotism.

[KrustyKidd]

Illegal War? Rev, get some facts. Read some resolutions and comon back and we can move on. There is lots out there to refute you, and none to support you. Read the resolutions, cross reference them as they were intended and you will see why even the French acknowledged that it was legal.

To get you started, here is a discussion on this From 'American Kid Asks Daddy Thread'

KK, you keep mentioning that Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire. So far, you're the only one who has (it certainly was never mentioned by Bush, Rummy, Powell, Rice or any other Bushnicks in the run up to the war). I find it  alittle curious that this detail seems to have slipped the top decision-makers' notice.

Even if such was the case, that certainly was not the primary rationale for war.

The UNSC rejected the joint US/UK/Spanish resolution which would have authorized military action against Iraq. Thus, the invasion was conducted without UN approval.

So, trying to give the invasion legitimacy by bringing the UN into it, when that very body rejected military action, is just wrong.

It's been a year. There's nothing there. What is this "prohibited material" that's been found, and does any of it constitute evidence of a "grave and gathering danger"? Much of the "evidence" used to determine the Iraq "threat" has since been discredited, as have many of the "WMD program-related activity" finds (remember the "bio-weapon" trailers?).

There's always going to be an element of resonable doubt about Iraq's weapons capabilites. But we had the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq saying that 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability had been verifiably eliminated since 1998. He was ignored and smeared. Hans Blix, while grousing about the uncooperative Iraqis (keep in perspective too that Iraq had previously-and correctly- accused past weapons inspection teams of harbouring U.S. spies), has since concluded that Iraq destroyed all its banned weapons after 1991. In other words: the inspections worked.

.

Blix's report to the UN in part

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can".. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.

When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.

This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

To summarize the summary:

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

Nor do they exclude that possiblity Even Blix, who was doing everything he could to avert war could not say that WMD themselves were not in Iraq.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied.

Hmmm, that would mean WMD right?

Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 [metric] tons..

Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Somewhere in the amount of 2 million pounds of it, enough to fill three or four semi trailers.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. 

Gee, Saddam was at least staying busy while he hampered inspections. What could he have been moving around with all those helping hands?

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media

WO! Iraq was seemingly decieving the inspectors. Imagine that. Why though? MAybe to keep the stuff they had said they destroyed even though they didn't?

The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

Hmmm that would mean deception and not cooperating with inspectors right?

I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Hmmm, that would mean WMD if dropped in one of the warheads they had right?

final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.

Hmmm, afterwards Blix discovered these have a range of more than 600 miles. This would mean prohibitted weapons right?

such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes

Hmmm, scince then they have discovered scientists with crates of 'take home work' documents in their homes. One even had parts for a freakin particle separator in his garden as 'take nhome work' for crying out loud!

Where is this stuff? Well, they bury fighter jets and move labs around. Why is it beyond the scope of anybody's immagination to think that three trailers containg drums of whatever are not somewhere under the ground in the uninspected two thirds of Iraq? Or in one of these unaccounted for warheads in one of the 120 uninspected weapons depots?

Anyhow, the world thought they were there. Herre are some quotes from leaders who are quoted using the same intelligence the US worked on.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to re

build his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

" Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!" Michael Moore

And here are the applicable resolutions:

686

4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid;

686

2. Demands that Iraq implement its acceptance of all twelve resolutions noted above

678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

On 27 Jan, Blix reported all sorts of stuff still being discovered in Iraq. They were cooperating he said, 'an encouraging sign' but nowhere near the spirit of the orders they had signed the ceasefire with. For a country that was supposed to be free of 'WMD and all quipment, related material and resources' (including dual purpose stuff) thery sure had a lot that was 'discovered' rather than 'turned in.'

687

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; ( All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Seems that this all adds up to a cease fire that was broken by Iraq. Or should I say, never fullly complied with. Therefore, member states (USA, France, Britain and whoever else including Syria, SA and all) cooperating with the government of Kuwait, acting under res 678 para2 "all subsequent resolutions" can simply resume military action.

Yet Israel is still allowed to keep its illegal nuke stockpile? I'm confused.

I have no illusions of what would happen to Israel if they didn't have them. As well, if you say that Israel with Nukes and an elected Government is the same as a band of Belt Bombers dancing around a smoking missile shouting "Ali Akkbarr!" and firing AK 47s in the air I have to question your sanity.

[Reverend Blair]

There are plenty of facts going the other way, Krusty. The biggest one being that the US was the aggressor nation and presented no proof that it was in clear and present danger. Despite your implications to the contrary, it has still not shown that Iraq was a threat to the United States and has provided no proof of wmd or ties between al Qaeda and Hussein. No state has the right to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions, especially when the UN is standing there telling them not to.

Those are contraventions of international law and Canada was right not to support the US in following them.

The illegal actions have continued too. The torture at Abu Ghraib, the changing of the economic structure of Iraq, the failure to protect infrastructure and civilians from looting are all against not only international conventions the US is a signatory too, but against US law as well.

Not criticising such action is a disservice not only to Canada, but to the world.

[KrustyKidd]

It is a continuation of the Gulf War. Not a new one. Iraq did not get rid of all WMD material, equipment and resources as well did not fully comply with the UN resolutions pertaining to delivery systems. The legality has nothing to do with clear and present dangers and the fabled imminent danger. That is merely a political selling point.

Read and return, remember to cross reference them. If you need help, there are lots of legal articles on it. Go to google and punch in- Iraq war legal issues. Blix's reports to the UN are also pertinent here, read those too. No WMD but lots of proof of non complience to the resolutions and subsequently leaves the door open for 'member states, assisting the government of Kuwait' to carry out the terms of the cease fire when it was broken.

[Reverend Blair]

Actually a clear and present danger is the only thing that matters because the US cannot unilaterally enforce UN resolutions when the UN tells it not to.

That is only one crime the US has committed in Iraq though, there are a plethora of others. Thisreport from the Ceneter for Economic and Social Rights gives some pretty detailed information on a range of them.

[KrustyKidd]

Rev, the US was not unilaterally enforcing a resolution. It, acting as one of the 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' was enforcing a ceasefire agreement during a time of war. You of course know that a cesaefire is always conditional right? Well, this one was as well, and those conditions were broken by Iraq and thus, for all legal reasons makes it as if hostilites never ceased. Can you give me the link to that resolution the UN passed to stop the US and other 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' from carrying out the action against Iraq after they had broken the '91 ceasefire again and again despite warnings from the UN? I know of no such resolution and would like to be set straight, a resolution disolving the above quoted resolutions would be just as good as well to solidify your point. Once again, I know of none.

As for the attempt to enlarge the issue to make an overwhelming moral case, one point at a time Rev, please. We can deal with everything once we get over this legality hump.

[Reverend Blair]

The UN and most of the world does not consider this a continutation of the Gulf War anymore than WWII was considered a continuation of WWI.

The US does not have the right to attack other nations because it doesn't like their leaders, nor does any other country. The only reason an attack is justified is proof of an immediate danger. Iraq posed no such threat.

By the way, the US also lied to gain allies for the first Gulf War. Remember those stories about Iraqi soldiers dumping premature babies on the floor in a Kuwaiti hospital? It never happened. The woman who testified that it did later recanted and admitted to being paid by the US, then ruled by George I.

Did you read the link though? I know 28 pages is a lot, but the issue here isn't just the illegal invasion of Iraq, it is the overall criminality of the Bush regime. Their actions in Iraq have showed that criminality.

[KrustyKidd]

Hi Rev. I will read the link when I get back home. I'm on the road and my lap top doesn't have PDF. I book marked it though.

As for the rest of your post, you have to understand that no matter what you feel, beleive or are outraged by, the war was legal simply by the inaction of the UN to change their previous resolutions. It matters not what they meant, what they intended or what they forgot to put in, it is what it is and it makes if nothing else, the US action - not illegal.

The rest, was it moral? Was it right? Was it benificial to the US only or to the rest of the world has nothing to do with the legality of it. They are different points. The point of whether it was legal or not, yes it was. At worst, nobody can say it was not legal and have it ruled as such in a international court.

[caesar]

Anyone, who does not realize that the USA made a serious and dangerous mistake in invading Iraq; must be deaf , dumb, and blind. Americans will be paying the price for this action for years to come; financially and more threats of terrorists attacking the USA. They did not stop nor slow dowwn the growth of terrorists; they fueled the flames

[Reverend Blair]

No, Krusty. The US broke international law by defying the UN. Since they had no proof of WMD or an immediate danger to themselves the war was illegal.

They can be criticised for so many other things though....predatory trade packages, tying the imposition of Bush's religious beliefs to aid programs, supporting countries that partake in human rights abuses, cancelling and backing out of international agreements and treaties, trying to evade international law by evading the ICC.

Like I said before, this thread is about more than Iraq. It is a huge dis-service to Canada and the international community to suggest that criticising the US makes Canadians unpatriotic.

[KrustyKidd]

Rev, i can't help you out here because you refuse to read the resolutions. You know, the one's that say Saddam and Iraq were not permitted to have any, and that means zilch, nadda, zip, not one shred of 'WMD, WMD Matererial, equipment, WMD resources or dual purpose equipment and facilities. It also went onto perscribe prohibbited delivery systems. Read all that and get it clear in your head that Iraq did not have to have a WMD on the tip of a missile to be in violation of 686,687,678 and 1441. Blix found enough to place them in violation in his 27 January report. They were even in violation in Blix's comment that 'cooperation left much to be desired.'

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;  All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Now look at the resolutions where they outline that this is a ceasefire and it's continuation is dependent on Iraq adhering to the above refered resolutions. They also outline that 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' may recontinue hostilities if Iraq does not carry out their end of the ceasefire.

There is no point going on with this if you refuse to look at the resolutions and continue to go with only rhetoric and feelings. Read them as I requested, then we can discuss them. As for you contention that

The US broke international law by defying the UN.

I asked you to provide some proof of this. Please do.

Even the French knew it was legal Rev.

At a lunch in the White House on January 13 last year, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, an adviser to the president, Jacques Chirac, and Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador in Washington, put the deal to Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser.

In an effort to avoid a bitter US-French row, the French officials suggested that if the US was intent on war, it should not seek the second resolution, according to highly placed US sources cited by Vanity Fair.

Instead, the two said that the first resolution on Iraq, 1441, passed the previous year, provided enough legal cover for war and that France would keep quiet if the US went to war on that basis.

Here is one of three places in the resolutions where force by the US is permitted:

Read this

Resolution 686 saying Iraq has to rid itself of WMD and all material

4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid;

Or else "paragraph 2 of resolution 678 rremain valid"

Resolution 678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Hope this helps.

Here. bone up on Blix.

To summarize the summary (again) of 27 January:

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

Nor do they exclude that possiblity Even Blix, who was doing everything he could to avert war could not say that WMD themselves were not in Iraq.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied.

Hmmm, that would mean WMD right?

Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 [metric] tons..

Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Somewhere in the amount of 2 million pounds of it, enough to fill three or four semi trailers.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. 

Gee, Saddam was at least staying busy while he hampered inspections. What could he have been moving around with all those helping hands?

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media

WO! Iraq was seemingly decieving the inspectors. Imagine that. Why though? MAybe to keep the stuff they had said they destroyed even though they didn't?

The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

Hmmm that would mean deception and not cooperating with inspectors right?

I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Hmmm, that would mean WMD if dropped in one of the warheads they had right?

final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.

Hmmm, afterwards Blix discovered these have a range of more than 600 miles. This would mean prohibitted weapons right?

such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes

Hmmm, scince then they have discovered scientists with crates of 'take home work' documents in their homes. One even had parts for a freakin particle separator in his garden as 'take nhome work' for crying out loud!

Here is Kay's report after the war confirming that Iraq did have WMD material and resources

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

    * A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

    * A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

    * Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

    * New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

    * Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

    * A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of  500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

    * Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

    * Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    * Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

Not much, remember though, Iraq said it had nothing, had no intent on possesing any of it and had given it up. Their telling the truth and being trustworthy was a big issue here. Guess they lied.

Rev, as I told another member just a month ago, in order to understand what is going on you have to remember that Iraq had 12 years to get rid of this stuff and to ensure they were in compliance with 14 resolutions. Did they take them seriously? Did they adhere to the UN and cleanse themselves of WMD and related activity like they were bound to by the ceasefire agreement of 1991? If so, NOTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. NOTHING. Not one experiment, not one dual purpose chemical, lag, equipment, scientist working on a related project, and the only documents should have been records of destruction of all this material. Instead, it’s record and prooof of ongoing activity, attemps to develop, buy, deceive and preserve the capability to reconstitute their program.

KAYS REPORT

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.

He didn’t say that he found the car keys Saddam lost, he found dozens of WMD related activities.

* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

WMD relaterd material again in a country that shouldn’t have anything.

One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent  has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.

Take home work again. A deadly virus. Nothing sinister going on there?

* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

Gee, thought they had given up on development of WMD?

* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

But Saddam wasn’t trying to get nukes like the US said. Why would he be interested in this?

* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of  500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

A delivery system for what? Flowers? Candy?

* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

Why? They had no WMD or RELATED MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES, why would they not declare that to the UN?

* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

Oh, ‘don’t declare this to the UN It’s perfectly legal but whatever you do, don’t let the UN know.’

* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    * Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

But I thought they wern’t allowed to have missiles capable to reach over 150 km? Why would they try to get stuff that the UN said they were not allowed to have and that nullify the ‘91 ceasefire?

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

[Now that I have spoon fed you the argument, could you please dig up the applicable resolutions that nullified these ones and thereby made this action by the US illegal?

[caesar]

Even the first Gulf War may have been manipulated by the USA. Kuwait was encouraged to over deplete joint Kuwait/Iraqi oil fields.

According the the American War College (where Bush recently gave a speech) the Kurds were likely killed ACCIDENTLY while Iran and Iraq were both trying to gas each other using different gases. The College furthur states that the Kurds were seemingly suffering symptons of the gas used by Iran. (There goes that theory of Saddam and genocide of his own people)

The USA was reported to have used napalm on the "Road of Death" AFTER the cease fire was signed for the Gulf War. These charges came from former USA Attorney General (Kennedy/Johnson) Ramsey Clark.

He attempted to have Bush SR, Cheney and co charged with war crimes.

He is dismissed as being left wing but no credible evidence is ever offered to disprove his accusations. I begged someone/ anyone to disprove his words but none were given.

[Reverend Blair]

The US had no legal right to attack Iraq, Krusty. The UN, various human rights groups, and several think tanks that employ lawyers familiar with international law have said so. Bush's lawyers, who seem to specialise in skirting the law much like the lawyers employed by career criminals the world over, say otherwise. I can, and will, provide my gazillion links if you want, but I doubt you'd read them and you most likely wouldn't agree even if you did. I have read many of the links trying to support your position and I certainly will not agree with them.

Ramsey Clark actually formed and held a tribunal trying George Sr. and much of his cabinet in absentia, Caesar. Thee was found guilty. I have a feeling you've seen that report though. If not, let me know and I'll dig it up.

There is a very dark side to US foreign policy, especially under Republican regimes. Nixon and Kissinger, Reagan and Bush, Bush and Quail, and now Bush and Cheney have all committed what can really only be described as crimes against humanity. When Pinochet got busted the first person to hear the news was Kissinger's lawyer.

They know how guilty they are too. These things do not happen without the knowledge of the perpertrators. That's why Bush has refused to sign on to the ICC and whythey've threatened military action against The Hague should any American be put on trial there.

This thread is supposed to be about whether we (and our government) should be able to criticise the US though. If we cannot criticise them when they carry out illegal and immoral acts, then there is something wrong with the international community and our relationship with the US.

[caesar]

Thanks Rev; I have read much information regarding the first Gulf war. If we are to be truly democratic people and make our votes work effectively; we need to have all this information freely available to all.

What is the problem; any information that comes to light to show our countries making serious errors of judgement or just completely unfounded morally or legally; we bury; people don't want to hear or believe it. Like those mothers who deny their children are capable of doing any wrong. Denial does not correct situations before they spiral out of control.

[Reverend Blair]

Denial does not correct situations before they spiral out of control.

Exactly.

it's funny, I get accused of bashing the US all of the time, but when our leaders in Canada do questionable things, I want it investigated. If that investigation leads to real evidence, then I want them prosecuted.

Just before New Year's I wrote a thing on Islam Karimov and the Bush administration's connections to him. My feeling, and I'm certainly not alone, is that they are creating the next Saddam Hussein. I got mail accusing me of being anti-American. I didn't get any accusing me of being anti-Uzbek though. Funny how that works.

[KrustyKidd]

The US had no legal right to attack Iraq, Krusty.

I supplied my proof Rev, is yours in hiding? Oh, BTW, when you get the proof, send it to John Kerry. He'll make you a millionaire, hundreds, if not thousands of Democrat lawyers have been trying to get real dirt on Bush since he was elected. They have nothing. Are you trying to tell me that you are a highly skilled, yet undiscovered lawyer who has the evidence that would put Bush away? Wow, get to Washinton fast, the Democratic party is wating for you. You are their secret weapon that can save them hundreds of millions in anti Bush ads.

Why don't we move on? Easy, because this is a lie and we can't move on until it is corrected. Tell us all Rev, where is the UN resolution that makes all the resolutions authorizing force null and void? Comon Rev, give it to us.

Actually a clear and present danger is the only thing that matters because the US cannot unilaterally enforce UN resolutions when the UN tells it not to.

Comon Rev, we are talking the UN here. They make resolutions, not insinuate, rule with telepathy or send a fax. Where is the ruling that cancels the resolutions authorising force? Where did they say not to use force? I will ask it again, WHERE DID THEY EVER SAY NOT TO USE FORCE? I gave you the exerpts in the applicable resolutions that clearly state the authorisation of force and could even have quoted more, and you give me rumors of opinions.

Wonder why your leftist buddies aren't helping you out here? Because they challenged me on this a dozen times and had no proof. They know you're wrong and won't touch this with a ten foot pole.

Here is some opinion. Doesn't mean squat. Prove to us that it was illegal Rev.

Here, opinions are like ____. Everybody has one, me, you. They are not a UN ruling. So where is the UN ruling that rescinds all former resolutions and says not to use force in Iraq? Where is the UN resolution that says that the US as a member nation assisting the government of Kuwait is

NOT

to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

?

You can't just go around dropping an usubstanciated fact in the middle of an argument expecting it to be adopted as gospel truth.

I can, and will, provide my gazillion links if you want, but I doubt you'd read them and you most likely wouldn't agree even if you did. I have read many of the links trying to support your position and I certainly will not agree with them.

The links I provided were highlights of the applicable UN resolutions as I assumed that you had read them already in their entirety. Are you telling me that you have never read them or you don't agree with them? If the latter, which part?

Here are the resolutions themselves.

As I said earlier, none of them stand on their own. They constantly refer to other resolutions and you have to cross reference them in order to understand them. I do hope that you consider them somewhat relevent to the discussion as they are the deciding factor of this issue. In order to make your argument I just need the one where the UN says the US and /or 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' are not permitted to implement the resolutions against Iraq pertaining to the ceasefire. No, Rev, Ramsay Clark and whatever intelligent opinion he holds is not the UN. It is not a resolution much as you would like it to be.

The UN are the ones who made the resolution and they are the ones who can change it. I don't expect you to read a million links Rev. I do however, expect you to read UN resolutions if you are going to go on about legalities or illegalities and be conversant with the stuff you are going on about though.

I fear that you may be thinking about the late February resolution the US and Britain tried to get passed specificly authorising the use of force. Britain needed to try that to in order to quell dissent in the oppostition in the UK. The US, reluctent to try it did so only to watch it fail. It's failure was only a failure for that resolution though, It did not cancel or affect any previous resolutions hence 686,678 and the others were still applicable. LOL, is it any wonder they were afraid to try another one?

Loopholes? You bet. But prove to me that it was illegal.