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: 10:57:49 03/07/04 Sun
Author: Dave Huber
Subject: Re: Aristide and Iraq
In reply to: Cousture 's message, "Re: Aristide and Iraq" on 18:56:40 03/06/04 Sat

>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 :-)

Well, I'm flattered, to say the least! :-)

>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! ;-)

I'm ready and willing!

>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.

Your last sentence is the key here. Yes, France had every right to oppose US policy, and the US public had every right to show its displeasure at the French by boycotting their wines, etc. Personally, I've no problem with such consumer demonstrations; however, changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" and French's mustard having to explain they're not French obviously are extreme reactions, and I would argue the majority of Americans recognize that.

>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.

"Paranoia" is an irrational fear of something. The actions you describe may be silly and ridiculous, but they're not examples of 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.

I would disagree w/you about the "severity" of impact regarding your comparison. I understand your feelings about a US president voicing his opinion about what he'd like to see in Canada; however, they are just words, and how would they affect votes on Québec sovereignty? Wouldn't it galvanize and strengthen the views, if any effect at all, already possessed by each side -- {most] Anglos in favor of a united Canada, and [roughly half of] Quebecois in favor of sovereignty?

France not only opposed US measures in Iraq, they actively sought to undermine the US position but searching for opposition allies, such as Germany. I do not say that is NOT within their right to do so -- just as I do not say it is NOT within a president's right to express his views on a desired outcome of another country's decision-making.

>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.

I heard of the incident. And that is -- what -- one overly-extreme case of overzealous persecution of a middle-eastern person? Yes, there are more examples, too. But the frequency of such incidents is minute in the overall scheme of things. Nothing is error-free.

>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.

This view is shared by many, obviously. I'm not entirely certain of my views on Guantanamo prisoners. I will say, however, that there is plenty of established legal precedent that appears to favor the US administration's position on the Gitmo (Guantanamo's nickname) -- see http://www.invincibleironman.com/hube/December2003.htm#WHYFOXNEWSISNECESSARY and
http://www.invincibleironman.com/hube/December2003.htm#PRISONERSOFWAR?
and
http://www.invincibleironman.com/hube/December2003.htm#MEANINGOF%22WAR%22
for starters.

During WW II would you have been in favor of "charging" captured German and Japanese troops with crimes? Granting them a "right to fair trial?"

>The right to a
>fair trial and to not be unjustly held prisonner is
>one of the most basic rights of our democratic
>societies.

Not during wartime they're not. But, whether we're "officially" at war is a matter of debate. See some of the links above for opinions as to whether we're actually "at" war. IMO, Bush could have avoided this controversy by going to Congress and asking for an official declaration.

>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.

Tenet is the head of the CIA. He is being blamed by virtually everybody b/c it was the intelligence that was faulty. Many -- Dems and Repubs alike -- want Bush to fire him.

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

Then any "coalition" is a joke as the US makes up the vast majority of the force. (I never said it was a "big powerful coalition -- you did!) The "coalition" in 1991 was vastly disproportionately American, as was the NATO force in Kosovo. So?

>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.

See above. And you sound a bit condescending there...or is it me?

>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).

I'd just like consistency all around. Did you know even Wesley Clark, who was in charge of forces in Kosovo, admitted that, technically, Kosovo was an "illegal war"?

>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.

Sure it's not. But then again, neither Kosovo nor Rwanda were after WMDs nor stonewalled UN inspectors for over a decade. Nor financed radical Islamic terrorists. You believe "genocide" warrants immediate military attention, whereas others believe violating over a dozen UN mandates after losing a war (and agreeing to the mandates) and actively seeking WMD programs warrants such.

>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.

But this takes me back to my original point, to which you objected as "putting words in your mouth" -- killing is killing, whether it is an organzied "genocide" as in Kosovo or in a civil war. If many more are killed in a civil war -- many more than the 2000 in Kosovo -- how can non-intervention there be justified whereas intervention is justified in Kosovo? I'm not saying that was the case in Haiti, but there have been regional wars and conflicts that have resulted in many more than the 2000 deaths of Kosovo.

[ 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.