Bush asks Canadians to support U.S. puppet govt.

[MapleBear]

Specficially, George W. Bush to support the puppet government the U.S. has installed in Iraq. Are Canadians stupid enough to bite? If not, will they be sold out by corrupt or spineless government officials?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...A0&refer=canada

[Choke]

What's the alternative, support the insurgents?

[Tawasakm]

I'm sure the majority of Canadian would support the ideal of a self-determined Iraqi government controlling their sovereign nation independently.

Unfortunately after that it becomes alot more complicated. While people may support the ideal the actual practical aspects of what is occuring in Iraq can create grave doubts that that ideal is, in fact, actually occurring. Perhaps the US should ask Canada to support the ideal in principle and help to make it possible. In my view the US should get a neutral country(s) to set up the elections and assist the new government in drawing up its charters, powers, laws etc. It would seem advisable, to me, for the US not to be involved too much in that process beyond supporting it.

[caesar]

What's the alternative, support the insurgents?

"Insurgents" or freedom fighters? All depends on your point of view.

If a bunch of foreigners came and took over your country; would you not fight back.

Plus, some of these are foreign terrorists that have come to Iraq to fight the American aggression.

More support would have gone to a government set up by the UN which included Arab Nations support.

[caesar]

Perhaps the US should ask Canada to support the ideal in principle and help to make it possible. In my view the US should get a neutral country(s) to set up the elections and assist the new government in drawing up its charters, powers, laws etc

I do believe; that something along those lines has been offered/ requested and under serious consideration.

[caesar]

Are Canadians stupid enough to bite? If not, will they be sold out by corrupt or spineless government officials?

Some are; as you can see by the posters on this forum. The majority are not. As for the spineless government; that may be a problem. Since the majority of Canadian did not support this unwise, badly timed, illegal invasion of Iraq based on bogus information; I think PM PM will think twice before throwing his full support behind any Bush influenced government in Iraq. However, elections in Iraq are supposed to come next month. We will watch and see how that is handled.

[Choke]

It would seem advisable, to me, for the US not to be involved too much in that process beyond supporting it.

Agreed.

"Insurgents" or freedom fighters? All depends on your point of view.

I don't assume people will know what I'm talking about if I say freedom fighters.

If a bunch of foreigners came and took over your country; would you not fight back.

Mabye. I mean, in most countries that get invaded, the vast majority don't actually end up engaging in rebellion.

Plus, some of these are foreign terrorists that have come to Iraq to fight the American aggression.

Um, yes, and that has what to do with this?

More support would have gone to a government set up by the UN which included Arab Nations support.

Since the majority of Canadian did not support this...illegal invasion of Iraq

What made it illegal exactly? Who has the authority?

[Tawasakm]

There are long discussions on this forum regarding the legality of the war in Iraq.

One of them can be found here.

(It starts on the second page and keeps on going on).

It seemed clear to me after reading through it all that while the legailty could be questioned it couldn't actually be proven illegal. I am not a lawyer though. I hope you enjoy reading it - it certainly becomes a very good debate.

[caesar]

It can be proven illegal but as the UN foolishly allowed the USA to be exempt from prosecution for war crimes it really doesn't matter; does it.

[Choke]

Yes caesar, that's what I meant.

[Tawasakm]

Before I read such arguments as the one I linked to I thought the war was illegal. However KK makes a very good legal argument. Not commenting on other aspects but in purely legal terms they seem safe.

Caesar you said this:

It can be proven illegal but as the UN foolishly allowed the USA to be exempt from prosecution for war crimes it really doesn't matter; does it.

I may have missed it but I didn't see you providing evidence in the argument I linked to when you were asked to (I do recall you making that same assertion though). KK provided evidence with which some people disagreed but failed to prove. If you can then please do so - I would like to see it. If I missed it could you please tell me roughly where it was in the discussion (page number and vaguely where it sits on the page is good enough).

[shackwacky]

I am not sure about the legality of the Bush war. In any case, Bush has set a dangerous precedent, by arrogantly forging ahead in his preemptive war (or invasion) regardless of the fact that the UN and many former allies deemed it a mistake or at the very least in need of considerably more information and discussion. Canada was one country who firmly said no, we will not engage in this type of practice. We need to stand firm on this. :angry: To go and stand hand in hand with the Americans signing coombya while the Iraquis mark their x's...what does that say to the world? That we have decided that what GW did was a good thing after all, that the ends justified the means and that we are sorry we got so upset??

[Choke]

People act as though this was the first ever pre-emptive attack in the history of man. But no, it has happened before thousands of times and will continue to happen.

Furthermore, I supported the war and continue to do so, for one reason, sanctions. The sanctions were killing Iraqis at a rate of around 50,000 per year, so if this war killed another 100,000 in the last couple of years, that's actually not any worse, and there is now hope that whether the Americans succeed or fail in Iraq, the sanctions won't be there to continue killing people.

[Guest eureka]

Not you, Tawasakm! I thought that you were smarter than that.

There is not one single shred of evidence that supports any contention that the attack on Iraq was legal. I thought I had dispensed with any necessity to take that further in the discussion you refer to.

My two points there are indisputable. Those and the fact that the United Nations & legal experts around the world say iy was illegal. The fact that the US no longer pretends to argue that they had law on their side should be enough. Even Bush is reduced to saying that the "intervention" was to remove a "bad" man and to implying that Iraq was behind the WTC raid - notice he does not say it any more; just that "we were attacked" when talking about Iraq.

There is no cause to go on disputing the illegality and there is no jurist in the world who says that it was legal,

[Choke]

The UN has no mandate to enforce the legality of war, so it really doesn't matter at all what they think, AT ALL.

[Tawasakm]

Not you, Tawasakm! I thought that you were smarter than that.

Smart I may be but legally savvy I am not. Basing my opinion on that particular thread there were a couple of points of KK's that, it appeared to me, you failed to successfully refute.

That said you should not mistake my opinion concerning the war in Iraq. It was, in my view, a dangerous unilateral action based on a lie that has failed to achieve its intially stated objectives - disarmamnet of Iraqi WMD's and reduction of terroritst threats. I would have liked to have seen some kind of intervention that could have removed Suddam and the sanctions but not from Bush. He has no credibility for me after defying geneva conventions and lying in such blantantly obvious ways. "You're either with us or against us" set the trend and it hasn't gotten any better.

So please don't mistake my opinion about Bush and his conduct. It seemed to me, though, that KK had made his case well enough that the illegality of the war could not be, at the least, conclusively proven. That said when I have time I need to research some of the concepts involved in the argument so that I can gain an understanding of them myself and reach my true opinion on the matter.

[Guest eureka]

Just to keep it straight! I did not even attempt to refute KK's many points about the Resolutions because, in legal terms, they were irrelevant.

I raised only two points that could not be disputed and they were all that mattered. The fact that the Un was "seized" of the matter meant, legally, that it alone would hear the evidence and it alone would decide on action.

When a particular judge is "seized" of a matter, no other judge can hear a case and no institution or body can act in any way.

All the talk of Reso;utions is so much verbiage. It is what Bush's lega; advisers tried in the beginning unsuccessfully.

[Big Blue Machine]

We should support the Iraq gov't. Not with troops, but with other things. We should support any democrary in any country.