VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:56:40 03/06/04 Sat
Author: Cousture
Subject: Re: Aristide and Iraq
In reply to: Dave Huber 's message, "Re: Aristide and Iraq" on 12:08:09 03/06/04 Sat

>Muchas gracias, mon ami, if you don't mind me
>mixing some Spanish w/French! I agree w/you.

The only "problem" with our political discussions is that we usually end up basically agreeing on most issues ;-) The only time we could not reach an agreement was on global warming and Kyoto if I remember correctly.

But what I'd like to see is a REAL debate between Dave and Ted Kennedy (you have similar accents so you'd be a good match) or better yet, Dave vs. Micheal Moore. Now that I'd pay good money to see :-)

Come on, if there's a staunch and well-informed Democrat reading this, start up a friendly debate with my buddy Dave here, he'll give you a run for your money! ;-)

>You may recall that I am on
>record as opposing the Iraq war because I
>believe that a policy of "pre-emption" sets a
>dangerous precedent, and opens the door for other
>countries to use the same "excuse" if they wish to
>attack another country.

I do remember and we are perfectly agreed on that. In fact, the wars againts Afghanistan and Iraq *have* set a dangerous precedent as many countries all over the world have gotten tougher and more agressive in the name of the "fight against terrorism". The USA are a world leader and they set an example to others by the way they behave and the decisions they make.

>>true? Clearly, for a little while, it did seem that
>>the whole country was in the grip of some strange
>>paranoia. One simply needs to look at everyone
>>over-reacting to France's opposition to the war to see
>>that the rules of the game had changed. Thankfully, it
>>now seems to have returned to normal.
>
>"Paranoia?" -- when four airliners are used as
>missiles to attack your largest city and capital? Yes,
>there were a few extreme nutcases who called folks who
>disagreed w/the Patriot Act and other things
>"traitors." And do we want for things to
>"return to normal" since it was the normal
>complacency that led, however indirectly, to 9/11?

I'm not saying that the extra security measures that have been created are paranoia (although in some cases they are too extreme, I'll come back to that). I was refering to the "traitor accusations" (you tell me it's the work of a few extreme nutcases, all right, I'm enclined to believe you) and the anti-French paranoia, surely you haven't forgotten the *freedom* fries incident? Or the drop in sales of French wines and the drop in clients going to French restaurants or the mustard company "French" having to make an official statement to say that there was nothing French about their company but the name? That is not just a couple of nutcases, it's public paranoia, and why? Because a sovereign country (France) voiced its opposition to the war? They had every right to oppose it if they wanted. I know it's not every breathing American that went nuts and started pouring bottles of French wine down the toilet, but from what I've read, it was a very real and very big phenomenon from coast to coast, all the way to Congress in DC. It's pure paranoia. Heck, when the US President declared he was in favour of a "united Canada" at the last referendum (which is clearly butting into a foreign country's internal business and much more insulting than what France did regarding Iraq, which is an international issue), Québécois didn't start pouring Coke and Pepsi bottles down toilets and we didn't stop eating cheeseburgers... you know what I'm saying? That's the paranoia I'm talking about.

As for security measures, I am in favour of tougher control in airports and at the borders and all that, I can understand the necessity. The last thing I want to see is more innocent people slaughtered. But the new security measures are sometimes extreme, in my most humble opinion, and there have been abuses. Have you heard of the Québécois of Syrian origin who was arrested in the USA, not even allowed a simple phonecall to his wife and then deported back to Syria (despite protests from the Canadian government) where he was imprisonned for no reason and tortured for 10 monthes? He was a Canadian citizen with a valid Canadian passport and no criminal record of any kind. That was an unexcusable decision from the American authorities.

And what of all the people sitting in jail, in Gantanamo Bay and other prisons. How many are there anyway? Several hundreds? All potential terrorists and prisoners of war? Have they even been charged with anything after sitting in their cells for monthes? That is also unacceptable in my view. The right to a fair trial and to not be unjustly held prisonner is one of the most basic rights of our democratic societies.

>No, that's not correct. Members of the House and
>Senate Intel Committees are privy to much the same
>intel info as the president.

Ah... I did not know that, thank you for enlightening me.

>>Besides, as I remember, the Bush
>>administration was quite categorical when talking
>>about the presence of WMDs. There was no "maybes" or
>>"perhaps" about it, the way they went on about it, it
>>was an absolute certainty. They even went as far as
>>quantifying it, Powell said the Iraqis had "between
>>100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents. That is
>>enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets". He
>>also talked to the UN of mobile labs (with setellite
>>photos)... The official transcript of Powell's address
>>is here: www.un.int/usa
>
>You are correct in your above assessment. Bush
>was pretty darn emphatic, as were Powell and
>others. However, we saw in what a small "spider hole"
>Saddam was cooped up in, and we've seen [conventional]
>missiles and rockets unearthed in the desert sand as
>recently as one month ago. To me, this says that WMD
>evidence can still definitely be unearthed. After all,
>Saddam had over a decade to hide 'em.

Time will tell.

>>And they want
>>us to believe that these two men who had every reason
>>to despise each other suddenly banded together to plan
>>9-11? I find that hard to believe.
>
>Ever hear "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

True, but in this case, I would need some serious undisputable evidence to believe it.

>>It's
>>fuzzy in my memory, do you know what I'm talking
>about?
>
>No, sorry.

OK, I looked around and I think I found the guy I'm talking about. I think it's Charles Tenet. I read that he is being blamed (by Democrats) for waiting after the beginning of hostilisties to say that Iraq did not pose an "immidiate threat" and that Iraq had no WMDs. And if I rember well, it's that same guy who was blamed by Bush too... in complete honesty, my understanding of this is sketchy, do illuminate me if you can.

>The US was (is) not acting unilaterally in Iraq, now,
>either!

Sure, on paper they had a big powerful coalition. But you're an intelligent man Dave, you know it was a joke.

Most countries in this coalition sent absolutely no soldiers (aside from the UK, Australia and a couple of hundred Italians if I remember well). It seems pretty obvious to me that these small and vulnerable countries simply publicly approved of the war to stay on the USA's good side. I mean just look at the list! Afghanistan (they're in a real strong position to help anybody), Bulgaria (now there's a force to be reckoned with), Azerbaijan, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Estonia... for crying out loud man. You call that a coalition? Now what Bush Sr. had in 1990, now that was a coalition.

>There is also nothing in the NATO Charter that allowed
>NATO to intervene in Kosovo/Yugoslavia. NATO is a
>collective security organization designed for
>collective defense. How was
>Kosovo/Yugoslavia/Serbia a threat to any NATO country?
>It wasn't. Even so, what right does any
>organization have to defy any nation's sovereignty?

You're absolutely right, it is not NATO's mandate or raison d'être at all, I totally agree with you on that. We've had this discussion before. But at least, when you have NATO allies agreeing to help in a military endeavour taking place in Europe, what you have is a continental consensus. It's not as good as UN approval, but the extreme urgency of the situation (an ongoing genocide) made quick action absolutely necessary. For these reasons, I put Kosovo in a different category all its own, similar to Rwanda but nothing in common with Iraq (where there was no ongoing genocide, no urgency and no consensus of surrounding Arab nations).

>See my above. But ultimately, IMO, this is a role for
>the UN, not NATO or other organizations.

Absolutely, which is why I wish the UN were given a stronger mandate and the means to enforce it.

>Unfortunately, the UN is too often a eunuch when it
>comes to acting to prevent slaughters like Kosovo's,
>or worse, Rwanda's. What happens then? What if other
>organizations like NATO refuse to act? Why shouldn't
>the US or other nations willing to do so, do it alone?

If there was a situation like Kosovo or Rwanda and the UN and NATO refused to act quickly, I'd be the first to go down in the streets of Montréal with my American flag asking the USA to do something. But I maintain that Iraq was nothing like Kosovo or Rwanda.

>Maybe not on the scale of Kosovo's at the time.
>Besides, which, Kosovo's "genocide" only (and I really
>do hesitate to say "only," but for the sake of
>comparison) amounted to some 2000 killed. There were
>more killed on 9/11.

Thankfully, they were stopped before more were killed.

>>The situation in Haiti is quite different. It is not a
>>case of ethnic cleansing like Kosovo or Rwanda. This
>>was a clash between armed factions, rebels and forces
>>loyal to Aristide.
>
>So, killings have to be racially or ethnically
>motivated to require intervention? If there is "just"
>a civil war which kills thousands of people, there
>should be no intervention?

Wait a minute, don't make me say things I never said there. I never said that. I'm just saying that Haiti and Kosovo are two completely different ball games. I never said that there should be no intervention in a civil war.

As I have said, I am in favour of the removal of Aristide and I am glad he's gone... I just want to know with certainty what was done and how it was done.

But to compare Haiti to Kosovo is a mistake in my opinion. In Kosovo, you had a ruling government who had endeavoured to slaughter all members of a minority group: a genocide. In Haiti, you had rebels trying to topple the government, there's one heck of a big difference. Although the population always suffers in periods of unrest like this, no minority group was being targeted for eradication by either side. This was not an ongoing genocide, that's all I'm saying.

Clearly, in the case of a genocide, a quick intervention is of the essence and the people responsible for it must be severely punished. But in the case of a civil war, it's not that easy. Who's in the right, the government or the rebels? Who has the authority to decide?

And by the way, last I heard, there was no mention of "thousands" of killed in the Haitian crisis.

>Ultimately, I would too, as I stated above. And, I
>believe we traded some ideas about how to reform the
>UN to make it more effective in dealing w/such
>tragedies. But no matter what, there will
>always be dissension about getting involved in
>another country's affairs depending on strategic
>importance, economic importance, and/or political
>importance.

A very lucid comment. You are absolutely right of course... sadly...
.
.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.