# US Access to Osama



## banko (3 Nov 2004)

Not sure what opinion to form on this just yet...  any comments?

"How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office, and the offer held good until February 2 of 2002. This is the charge leveled by an Afghan American who had been retained by the US government as an intermediary between the Taliban and both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Kabir Mohabbat is a 48-year businessman in Houston, Texas. Born in Paktia province in southern Afghanistan, he's from the Jaji clan (from which also came Afghanistan's last king). Educated at St Louis University, he spent much of the 1980s supervising foreign relations for the Afghan mujahiddeen, where he developed extensive contacts with the US foreign policy establishment, also with senior members of the Taliban.

After the eviction of the Soviets, Mohabbat returned to the United States to develop an export business with Afghanistan and became a US citizen. Figuring in his extensive dealings with the Taliban in the late 1990s was much investment of time and effort for a contract to develop the proposed oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan.

In a lengthy interview and in a memorandum Kabir Mohabbat has given us a detailed account and documentation to buttress his charge that the Bush administration could have had Osama bin Laden and his senior staff either delivered to the US or to allies as prisoners, or killed at their Afghan base. As a search of the data base shows, portions of Mohabbat's role have been the subject of a number of news reports, including a CBS news story by Alan Pizzey aired September 25, 2001. This is the first he has made public the full story.

By the end of 1999 US sanctions and near-world-wide political ostracism were costing the Taliban dearly and they had come to see Osama bin Laden and his training camps as, in Mohabbat's words, "just a damn liability". Mohabbat says the Taliban leadership had also been informed in the clearest possible terms by a US diplomat that if any US citizen was harmed as a consequence of an Al Qaeda action, the US would hold the Taliban responsible and target Mullah Omar and the Taliban leaders.

In the summer of 2000, on one of his regular trips to Afghanistan, Mohabbat had a summit session with the Taliban high command in Kandahar. They asked him to arrange a meeting with appropriate officials in the European Union, to broker a way in which they could hand over Osama bin Laden . Mohabbat recommended they send bin Laden to the World Criminal Court in the Hague.

Shortly thereafter, in August of 2000, Mohabbat set up a meeting at the Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt between a delegation from the Taliban and Reiner Weiland of the EU. The Taliban envoys repeated the offer to deport bin Laden. Weiland told them he would take the proposal to Elmar Brok, foreign relations director for the European Union. According to Mohabbat, Brok then informed the US Ambassador to Germany of the offer.

At this point the US State Department called Mohabbat and said the government wanted to retain his services, even before his official period on the payroll, which lasted from November of 2000 to late September, 2001, by which time he tells us he had been paid $115,000.

On the morning of October 12, 2000, Mohabbat was in Washington DC, preparing for an 11am meeting at the State Department , when he got a call from State, telling him to turn on the tv and then come right over. The USS Cole had just been bombed. Mohabbat had a session with the head of State's South East Asia desk and with officials from the NSC. They told him the US was going to "bomb the hell out of Afghanistan". "Give me three weeks," Mohabbat answered, "and I will deliver Osama to your doorstep." They gave him a month.

Mohabbat went to Kandahar and communicated the news of imminent bombing to the Taliban. They asked him to set up a meeting with US officials to arrange the circumstances of their handover of Osama. On November 2, 2000, less than a week before the US election, Mohabbat arranged a face-to-face meeting, in that same Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt, between Taliban leaders and a US government team.

After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the "unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles."

Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty miles from Kabul.

In the wake of the 2000 election Mohabbat traveled to Islamabad and met with William Milam, US ambassador to Pakistan and the person designated by the Clinton administration to deal with the Taliban on the fate of bin Laden. Milam told Mohabbat that it was a done deal but that the actual handover of bin Laden would have to be handled by the incoming Bush administration.

On November 23, 2000, Mohabbat got a call from the NSC saying they wanted to put him officially on the payroll as the US government's contact man for the Taliban. He agreed. A few weeks later an official from the newly installed Bush NSC asked him to continue in the same role and shortly thereafter he was given a letter from the administration (Mohabbat tells us he has a copy), apologizing to the Taliban for not having dealt with bin Laden, explaining that the new government was still setting in, and asking for a meeting in February 2001.

The Bush administration sent Mohabbat back, carrying kindred tidings of delay and regret to the Taliban three more times in 2001, the last in September after the 9/11 attack. Each time he was asked to communicate similar regrets about the failure to act on the plan agreed to in Frankfurt. This procrastination became a standing joke with the Taliban, Mohabbat tells CounterPunch "They made an offer to me that if the US didn't have fuel for the Cruise missiles to attack Osama in Daronta, where he was under house arrest, they would pay for it."

Kabir Mohabbat's final trip to Afghanistan on the US government payroll took place on September 3, 2001. On September 11 Mohabbat acted as translator for some of the Taliban leadership in Kabul as they watched tv coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Four days later the US State Department asked Mohabbat to set up a meeting with the Taliban. Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden's bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands.

This meeting in Quetta was reported in carefully vague terms by Pizzey on September 25, where Mohabbat was mentioned by name. He tells us that the Bush administration was far more exercised by this story than by any other event in the whole delayed and ultimately abandoned schedule of killing Osama.

On October 18, Mohabbat tells us, he was invited to the US embassy in Islamabad and told that "there was light at the end of the tunnel for him", which translated into an invitation to occupy the role later assigned to Karzai. Mohabbat declined, saying he had no desire for the role of puppet and probable fall guy.

A few days later the Pizzey story was aired and Mohabbat drew the ire of the Bush administration where he already had an enemy in the form of Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed on September 22 as the US special envoy to Afghanistan. After giving him a dressing down, US officials told Mohabbat the game had changed, and he should tell the Taliban the new terms: surrender or be killed. Mohabbat declined to be the bearer of this news and went off the US government payroll.

Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father) when the Taliban once again said they would hand over Osama Bin Laden unconditionally. Mohabbat tells us he relayed the offer to David Donahue, the US consulate general in Islamabad. He was told, in his words,that "the train had moved". Shortly thereafter the US bombing of Afghanistan began.

In December Mohabbat was in Pakistan following with wry amusement the assault on Osama bin Laden's supposed mountain redoubt in Tora Bora, in the mountains bordering Pakistan. At the time he said, he informed US embassy officials the attack was a waste of time. Taliban leaders had told him that Bin Laden was nowhere near Tora Bora but in Waziristan. Knowing that the US was monitoring his cell phone traffic, Osama had sent a decoy to Tora Bora.

From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden. As a consequence of this failure more than 3,000 Americans and thousands of Afghans died. Mohabbat himself narrowly escaped death on two occasions when Al Qaeda, apprised of his role, tried to kill him. In Kabul in February, 2001, a bomb was detonated in his hotel in Kabul. Later that year, in July, a hand grenade thrown in his room in a hotel in Kandahar failed to explode.

He told his story to the 9/11 Commission (whose main concern, he tells us, was that he not divulge his testimony to anyone else), also to the 9/11 Families who were pursuing a lawsuit based on the assumption of US intelligence blunders by the FBI and CIA. He says his statements were not much use to the families since his judgment was, and still remains, that it was not intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks, but criminal negligence by the Bush administration."

Here's the URL for that article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

I found a few similar articles:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/28/attack/main312836.shtml
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040605/asp/foreign/story_3334983.asp
http://www.dw-world.de/dwelle/cda/detail/dwelle.cda.detail.artikel_drucken/0,3820,1430_AD_1226769_A,00.html

The site this article is from is pretty "anti-bush", so in fairness to bush, he might not have ever known of this and it could have been bumbling on the part of his staff... but if this is true I'd like to know the reasons behind it. Did someone just not want to co-operate with the Taliban? Or did they just not want to share the credit for capturing Osama?


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

Well, at this point it really doesn't matter what the damn reason. A whole BUNCH of innocent American civilians got plugged, the towers collapsed, a mini USA depression happened and then thousands of Afganistan and Iraqi people died. And they voted him in again! Not that I'm really all that surprised, but hey? You might as well keep the prick who made your nation look like a bunch of lunatics going against international law and invading a country, make it seem like you WANTED it that way... Umm.. Right?  :

I have no faith left in the American people. I was just starting to think that they really weren't that bad as a nation. I dunno, just my opinion. I'd be just as bad as them becuase I'll be voting Conservative in our next election anyway. Our Conservative party is like the American Republican party in many ways.

In short, it's probably many factors that contributed to the errors in communication. Maybe they didn't just want Osama? Maybe they knew that other higher ups alongside him needed to be taken out as well? Maybe they knew that wouldn't appease the people's families who died in 9/11. Maybe they didn't give a shit about Osama as much, needed him alive as an excuse to invade 2 nations and cause havoc. Who knows? I don't for sure, do any of us? No... Will we ever? Almost 110% sure NOT.

Joe
 :rage:


----------



## KevinB (4 Nov 2004)

:

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

Personally from diggin in other stuff I dotn think I woudl put to much stock in that article.


Recruit Joe - you obviously missed the point that the US had clear writ to act by UN resolution.  IRAQ had nt in fact prooved to the UN that they had destroyed their stock of WMD's - the onus was on Iraq to prove they had - not on the US or others to prove they had not.


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

> Recruit Joe - you obviously missed the point that the US had clear writ to act by UN resolution.  IRAQ had nt in fact prooved to the UN that they had destroyed their stock of WMD's - the onus was on Iraq to prove they had - not on the US or others to prove they had not.



KevinB- You obviously missed the point where the US was told that they weren't allowed to INVADE IRAQ by military force. Yes Iraq failed to comply, yes Saddam was being an idiot, yes the US and the rest of the UN vote that "serious consequences" would happen if Iraq didn't comply, but when the US asked the REST OF THE WORLD if they could be authorized for military action/lethal force.... They went against the grain, broke international law as it was and invaded.

No way around that fact, the UN voted NO in the end...

But I do agree with you not too put too much trust in this article. Simply too many unknowns to even comprehend a viable truth.
 :-\


----------



## jrhume (4 Nov 2004)

Wrong, Mr Recruit Joe -- no international law was broken.  There laws being invoked are not binding on the US as we've never accepted them -- and never will.  

Look it up.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (4 Nov 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
> 
> ...


----------



## banko (4 Nov 2004)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> Wrong, Mr Recruit Joe -- no international law was broken.   There laws being invoked are not binding on the US as we've never accepted them -- and never will.
> 
> Look it up.



So, does that mean that the US of A is a "Rogue State"? Maybe we should start imposing some sanctions...


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

> Wrong, Mr Recruit Joe -- no international law was broken.  There laws being invoked are not binding on the US as we've never accepted them -- and never will.
> 
> Look it up.



Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal either.

So why is the USA in the United Nations and a permanent member if they're not abiding or accepted or even INCLUDED in the laws that govern international politics?

Basically that means they really don't care. Geeez... Wonder why 9/11 happened? Hmmm, can't put my finger on it.... 

 :

You'll get bitten if you stick your hand where it doesn't belong. Everyone knows that, human nature!


----------



## FastEddy (4 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> And they voted him in again! Not that I'm really all that surprised, but hey? You might as well keep the prick who made your nation look like a bunch of lunatics going against international law and invading a country, make it seem like you WANTED it that way... Umm.. Right?   :
> 
> I have no faith left in the American people. I was just starting to think that they really weren't that bad as a nation.   Our Conservative party is like the American Republican party in many ways.
> 
> ...




Your a "Real Gem"


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

> Your a "Real Gem"



Yeah thanks, sure I'll take that as a compliment. 
Do you have an opinion? Go ahead, share it!

Did you not like the part where I mentioned that I have no faith in the American people? Or before that where I mentioned that Bush made the nation look like a bunch of lunatics?

I apologize if I made you upset in anyway, honestly, but that's life.

Please do share your reason here or in a PM to me why I'm a "Real Gem"... I can be a jackass but I'm open to critisizm.

PS> Yes I know the real lunatics were the suicide-hijackers who completed the 9/11 catastrophy.


----------



## QORvanweert (4 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal  1either.
> So why is the USA in the United Nations and a permanent member if they're not abiding or accepted or even INCLUDED  2in the laws that govern international politics?
> Basically that means they really don't care. Geeez... Wonder why 9/11 happened? Hmmm, can't put my finger on it3....
> :
> You'll get bitten if you stick your hand where it doesn't belong. Everyone knows that, human nature!


1. They did not sign the land mine accord because that would have meant digging up the ENTIRE belt between N&S Korea, it is important to note that neither did Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India and quite a few others.. landmines are also an excellent means of defense. In my opinion Canada should never have signed it.
2. Please give examples of how they are not 'abiding' to set rules, *note* resolutions voted into place by the very countries about to be attacked do not count. Please give examples of how the U.S. has not 'accepted' these rules? and, since they are part of the ruling five(7?) they can overturn or disregard resolutions, ie.. Israel etc...
3. (Insert sarcasm here) Oh yes of course, America does not care in the least that people are flying planes into it's buildings or that there are more ideological extremists' just lining up to blow themselves up... like heck, it is probably good for their skin! (End Sarcasm) What evidence do you have that America is like a gr. 5 fat boy just bullying his way around the playground? or that 9/11 is a by-product of it's international philanderings?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Nov 2004)

> KevinB- You obviously missed the point where the US was told that they weren't allowed to INVADE IRAQ by military force. Yes Iraq failed to comply, yes Saddam was being an idiot, yes the US and the rest of the UN vote that "serious consequences" would happen if Iraq didn't comply, but when the US asked the REST OF THE WORLD if they could be authorized for military action/lethal force.... They went against the grain, broke international law as it was and invaded.



The US was never told they weren't allowed to INVADE IRAQ.   They WERE told that the UN did not authorize them to invade Iraq.   It would have required a separate motion in the Security Council INSTRUCTING the US NOT to invade Iraq to conclude that they weren't allowed to invade.   That never happened and would never happen.

Being told that people don't agree with my actions is not the same as being told not to act.

The UN is not the REST OF THE WORLD (don't your fingers get tired working those caps so hard? mine do and it breaks my train of thought. where was I.... Oh yes) the UN is a place where countries get together to discuss situations.   

Certainly some, a large number, of countries disagreed with the course of action the US wanted to pursue (many of them potential targets as they are failed states, supporters of state terrorism, threats to the US and general all around nasty individuals that wouldn't recognize democracy if it bit them) but equally a large number of countries agreed.   Including such notorious warmongers as Norway, Denmark and Holland, not to mention the usual suspects Britain, Australia, Poland, the Czechs, Hungary..... but I am sure you know the list of the 44 countries that joined the coalition by heart.

Nowhere does the UN say that a country can't defend itself against a threat.   The only points up for debate are what is a threat, who gets to define it, when and how can a nation react to a threat and most crucially what if it perceives a threat and is prevented from acting because other nations don't perceive the threat or fear the consequences of action.

Of such distinctions are legal careers made.   Ever discussed harassment cases?   Harassment occurs when the victim perceives it to have occured.

A threat occurs when the victim perceives it to have occured.

A harassment victim usually goes to the police and the courts to have the harasser prevented from continuing.

What is the victim to do if the police and the courts can't or won't take action and the harassment is perceived as continuing.

A harassment victim may move away.

A country can't.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2004)

Quotes from Recruit Joe,
I have no faith left in the American people. 

Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal either.
Quote,
that neither did Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India and quite a few other

So, unless you have just a baseless prejudice, you should have no faith in these other countries either then, correct?

EDIT: good post Kirkhill,....Hey Joe, all your facts are getting blown away, well at least you have rhetoric to guide you. :-[


----------



## banko (5 Nov 2004)

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> 2. Please give examples of how they are not 'abiding' to set rules, *note* resolutions voted into place by the very countries about to be attacked do not count. Please give examples of how the U.S. has not 'accepted' these rules? and, since they are part of the ruling five(7?) they can overturn or disregard resolutions, ie.. Israel etc...



Just curios if anyone knows what resolutions were voted into place by the countries about to be attacked, I'd like to find out more about that...


----------



## FastEddy (5 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Yeah thanks, sure I'll take that as a compliment.
> Do you have an opinion? Go ahead, share it!



Yes, just keep up the good work.


----------



## Guardian (5 Nov 2004)

With all respect to Recruit Joe, if it comes to a choice between trusting the American view (even as espoused by the Bush Administration) and the view of the "rest of the world," I'll take the American view. As bad as it may sometimes be, consider the alternatives. The American people looked at world opinion and perfomed a collective analysis that somewhat paralleled what follows here....

We're defining the "rest of the world" as represented by the UN - the organization that stood idly by and allowed 800,000 to be slaughtered in Rwanda (I'm aware that the "great powers, including the US, did nothing as well - I'm just pointing out the UN's shortcomings here), that couldn't solve Somalia, couldn't deter Saddam Hussein, that allows countries like Libya and Zimbabwe to sit on and even chair its human rights organ, that placed excessively restrictive rules of engagement on UN troops in the Balkans, and finally had to hand the problem over to NATO...... etc.

Or maybe we could look at the "other" nations whose opinion is "better" than that of the US Administration:

- France. This nation has actively tried to split Confederation and take Quebec out of Canada, if you remember. They were one of Saddam's biggest suppliers of weapons. It was French officers supplying information on NATO operations to Serbia during the Kosovo conflict. Let's trust them, shall we?

- Or Russia? The soft, gentle, understanding rulers of Chechnya? Who also supplied weapons to Saddam, who gave Milosevic at least tacit backing through most of the Kosovo conflict as his troops chased civilians from their homes (not to absolve the KLA of their atrocities, of course), who tried to intimidate the Baltic states out of joining NATO....

- Maybe China? That bastion of progressive social thought and practice, home to Tianenmen Square, which intimidates and bullies the rest of the world into refusing to recognize democratic Taiwan and threatens to invade on a regular basis, which has killed tens of millions of its own people, which is actively destroying Tibetan culture, and which doesn't allow its own people freedom of speech, the press, or political activity. Maybe their public opinion is more legitimate than that of the United States....

- Perhaps all the Arab dictatorships? After all, Mubarak and Assad and King Hussein and the Saudi royal family define legitimacy. Leave aside the political thuggery and imprisonments, the suppression of religious freedoms, the lack of real democracy, and their personal enrichment off the backs of their own peoples - they don't agree with the Americans either.

Explain to me why "the rest of the world" has a more legitimate point of view than the United States. Maybe you have no trust left in the American people, but I fail to understand why, when comparing them to everyone else. The rest of the world may think alike, but that doesn't make them right. For myself, I don't trust them....


----------



## banko (5 Nov 2004)

I agree that I'd rather side with the US as opposed to China, Russia, the Arab dictators, the Asian dictators, etc. There are plenty of people in the world that are a lot worse than the US. However, the US is supposed to be a Democracy, the rest of the countries Guardian has mentioned (with the exception of France - not exactly sure what their goal is in all of this) are all *Dictators*. I think that is where most people are getting confused. Most countries are stuck with a communist / despotic / dictator style of government, and in a lot of these countries the general population doesn't know any better. In the US, Bush gets elected by a very narrow majority and continues his policy that not only a lot of Americans disagree with, but a lot of the world disagrees with. Almost the whole world supported the war on terrorism, but how many support the war in Iraq? Here's something else to consider...

The following letter appeared in the Sunday, March 30, 2003 edition of the Halifax Herald. The writer is Silver Donald Cameron:


Ambassador Paul Cellucci
Embassy of the United States of America,
490 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario

DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:

Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were
inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive.

Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S.
pressure and Canadian opinion -- a familiar position for Canadian prime
ministers -- and he will not tell you to go pound sand. But someone should.

Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to
the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore
participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq. "There is no security
threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and
able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate.
There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our
family."

Codswallop. And that's being diplomatic.

The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United
States. A monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestor for
repelling an invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The
very first instance of military co-operation among the 13 colonies
occurred in 1745 under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor
as governor of Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and
captured the Fortress of Louisbourg.

Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your privateers
sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The birth of
Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our
railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border.
Do you remember Manifest Destiny, the 1840s U.S. doctrine which held
that your country had a God-given mission to rule
all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the
slogan that rallied Americans to threaten an invasion in 1902 over the
Alaska boundary?
Yours is the only country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so
again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened.

And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring
to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in
1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against
Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies
only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A
million Canadians fought in the Second World War, and 45,000 died. We
need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and democracy.

Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as
close as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians -- I am one - have
family members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought
together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of
South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991. And when great catastrophe
strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each
other. As governor of Massachusetts, you must have been present at the
lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston each year -- an annual gift
from Nova Scotia to commemorate the immediate and massive assistance of
Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917.

Our chance to reciprocate came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Canadian
communities took in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S.
planes forced down by the terrorist attacks. Halifax alone hosted 7,200.
We housed them in our homes and schools and churches, fed them and
comforted them and treated them as family. We probably gave more
immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country.
Yet when your president later thanked nations for their help, he did not
mention Canada.

The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a
deliberate choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring
of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years -- an astounding
diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic
revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy
of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening.

A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to
be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your
government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have
noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They
lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is
a sideshow, a grudge match, a distraction. It will breed more martyrs,
and more terrorists.

Back in Massachusetts, in 1846, a young man was arrested and jailed for
refusing to pay taxes, to avoid supporting his government's deplorable
policies. He explained this in an essay, On the Duty of Civil
Disobedience, which has ever since inspired people like Gandhi and
Martin Luther King. His name was Henry David Thoreau, and no doubt the
governor of Massachusetts thought he was a pretty poor American. He was
not; like King, he was a voice for what is finest in American life and
values. And the issue on which he took his stand may sound a bit
familiar. He was opposed to an imperial war - the unprovoked U.S.
invasion which stripped Mexico of 40 per cent of its territory.

Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you
the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but
they are not your enemies. That is the message you should take back to
the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will
understand it.

Sincerely,

Silver Donald Cameron


Award-winning author Silver Donald Cameron lives in D'Escousse, NS 



The US went to war with Iraq, but I doubt it was for anything other than their own benefit.


----------



## rw4th (5 Nov 2004)

> A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to
> be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your
> government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have
> noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi.



As far as I'm concerned this sentence embodies the problem. The link between Iraq and terror organizations IS proven. Troop have training found camps, training materials, and literature on the ground.  

As for the hunt for Osama, it seems to me a large amount of US troops are still in Afghanistan and not part of ISAF. Are they there on vacation?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2004)

Stipulating that "The Rest of the World" - a broad term - is of a different opinion than the majority of the American people (and some others) is it fair to ask what informs that opinion?

Where does "The Rest of the World" get its information?

Some places have no contact with the outside world.   Some places only get their news from Priests and Mullahs and the occasional wanderer - those places still exist.   Some places get their news through state sponsored media and the people are organized by the government into "spontaneous" demonstrations.   Some places get their news through media, that if not state controlled are government friendly and believe in the power of the centre (a combination of the sense of power of the journalist, a desire to make things better and a market requirement to reach as many customers as possible?)

How many places do people get opposing information, and I'm making no claim as to which side has the right information, presented with equal force and in equal amounts so that it is possible to say that people have an "informed" opinion?

In many cases, it seems that the trial in the court of public opinion is being conducted with only the State Prosecutors being allowed to present their case.


----------



## rw4th (5 Nov 2004)

As for â Å“The Rest of the Worldâ ?, who exactly is that? 

Most of world is made up of dictatorships and corrupt pseudo-governments. Are those the opinions you're talking about?

The UN? I think enough has been said on what a joke it's become. If we listened to the UN, we'd be bombing Israel.

France, Germany, and Russia? These are the people who were illegally dealing with Iraq in the first place and stood to lose a lot of money if Saddam was removed. Their â Å“moral high groundâ ? doesn't exist, and their opinion biased by the money they stood to lose if Saddam was removed.

Oh, and by the way, where are the UN's sanctions against France, Germany, and Russia for violating the embargoes against Iraq? They're blatant disregard for the sanctions are the reason why Iraq didn't care about UN resolutions and did not feel compelled to obey them. So again, where are France, Germany, and Russia's punishments for violating actually UN resolutions that they were bound to?

Ah, yes they're aren't any because the UN has become an ineffectual partisan organization. 

The bottom line is that the US acts in its own best interest, while other countries acted in their own best interest (whether that interest is financial, or just plain fear of being next on the list). I'm not sure whose interests Canada is acting out of, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's not our own. 

Oh, and the â Å“Rest of the Worldâ ? can bite me.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal either.
> 
> So why is the USA in the United Nations and a permanent member if they're not abiding or accepted or even INCLUDED in the laws that govern international politics?
> 
> ...



First off, to even attempt to justify 09/11 in any way makes you just fricken' dispicable.   

RE:   The USA and international law, let's put this into clear perspective:

The USA was blocked from obtaining UN Security Council Approval by France, Russia and China.
France - Huge debt for illegal arms sales + $1 billion per annum in kickbacks from Oil-for-Food + Oil Contracts in place with ELF as soon as sanctions lifted.
Russia - Larger debt for previous arms sales + $2 billion per annum in kickbacks from Oil-for-Food + Oil Contracts in place with various Russian companies as soon as sanctions lifted.
China - Small debt + smaller kickbacks from Oil-for-Food + Large Oil Contracts in place with Chinese companies as soon as sanctions lifted.

In short, each of these so-called allies were taking bribes to not only protect Saddam, but to pro-actively lift sanctions regardless of WMD findings, and they were more than willing to profit at the expense of the Iraqi Population.

I would add that the Chinese have also been a huge stumbling block regarding UN Sanctions against Sudan as once again they have conditional oil rights contracts from the government.

Bottom Line:   Make sure you know what these "objective" international nations have in terms of conflict-of-interests before assessing the credibility of their statements otherwise you could look like a real ass.




Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2004)

Reading the article which started this thread doesn't give me a feeling that we are getting reliable information. Nor does it matter anyway, the Clinton Administration also had many chances to "get" Osama, but chose not to.

In the 1990's Americans did not take the threat of war with the Jihadis seriously (and neither did anyone else. I read a book titled "Target the West" and thought the author was overstating the case. It turns out he understated it...). The transfer of authority in 2000 included briefings on what the world situation was, and many of the people who developed that information were retained on the Bush team, to ensure a smooth transition. With the entire weight of the American Intelligence bureaucracy leaning towards the "these guys are annoying and dangerous nutbars" interpretation of the data, one guy thinking he's James Bond isn't going to change the situation. 

A little sidebar here, the invasion of Iraq is an integral part of the strategic plan to disrupt terrorism. The Ba'athists not only openly supported various terrorist groups, but were also eager and willing to use any means available to weaken American power in the Persian Gulf. Sanction busting and supporting terrorist actions directed against American interests were the courses of action open to Saddam, so he took them. Although no video of Saddam and Osama sharing a cigar exists, enough circumstantial evidence of collaboration is around to make a thinking person's hair stand up. I have yet to see the Czechs repudiate the idea that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer just before 9/11, and the British still maintain Saddam's agents were trying to buy Uranium Hexafluoride (Yellowcake) in Africa. Given the known and suspected connections between terrorist groups and the Ba'athist regime, toppling Saddam severs links between the terrorist groups as well as the links the terrorist groups had to a source of shelter and support. The Americans could have stated this far more forcefully. What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant.

While many nations and people in the world are afraid of American dominance, it should be noted the Americans themselves don't seem interested in a global empire. There are no American Proconsuls permanently stationed in conquered territories, and neither we nor anyone else pay tribute or taxes to the American Government, unless they are American citizens. People should try to imagine what a worlds dominated by the Soviet Union would have been like, or fast forward to a world dominated by China. We should be pleased with our good fortune in living in the American Century.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Nov 2004)

banko said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S.
> pressure and Canadian opinion -- a familiar position for Canadian prime
> ministers --



How about _leadership_?


----------



## banko (5 Nov 2004)

If you're saying that Chretien wan't a very good leader, I certainly won't argue with you on that point... I'd think neither would anyone else...


----------



## banko (5 Nov 2004)

rw4th said:
			
		

> As for â Å“The Rest of the Worldâ ?, who exactly is that?
> 
> Most of world is made up of dictatorships and corrupt pseudo-governments. Are those the opinions you're talking about?



For clarification:
If you're talking about my post, the "Rest of the World" was meant popular opinion of people throughout the world. It seemed that the majority of common people, regardless of national origin, sided with the US during / after 9/11. There are always going to be people that think that 9/11 was justified but if someone did a global survey, I think the majority of people in the world were sympathetic towards the loss of life on 9/11.


----------



## rifleman (5 Nov 2004)

I think you would be wrong.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2004)

When Palestinians were dancing in the streets after 9/11, I would find it rather difficult to believe there was much "popular" sympathy for the United States. When a best selling book in France has as its thesis "the Americans staged 9/11", it is hard to think there is much sympathy.

Oddly enough, if the Jihadis had flown a plane into the Eiffel tower, or blown up some European or Asian cultural icon, the Americans would have been there as fast as possible with hardhats, laptops and tools in hand, while sending their military to the far corners of the Earth looking for the perpetrators. That, my friend, is why I would side with the Americans before the "rest of the world".


----------



## rifleman (5 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, if the Jihadis had flown a plane into the Eiffel tower, or blown up some European or Asian cultural icon, the Americans would have been there as fast as possible with hardhats, laptops and tools in hand, while sending their military to the far corners of the Earth looking for the perpetrators. That, my friend, is why I would side with the Americans before the "rest of the world".



I believe they'd have helped with the tools etc. but they wouldn't be in Afganistan or Iraq right now


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Nov 2004)

banko said:
			
		

> If you're saying that Chretien wan't a very good leader, I certainly won't argue with you on that point... I'd think neither would anyone else...



I guess I am, but I was suggestesting more importantly that the writer's premise is wrong: that the PM has no choice but to 'balance' Cdn. public opinion against US interests ... he is casting the PM in the victim's role.  While I don't disagree that this was likely the case here, I don't accept the idea that there isn't an alternative (like the PM shouldn't a victim of popular opinion and US interests but should rather concentrate on doing what is best for Canadian interests).

I also find that recalling long-since-settled disputes in (relatively) ancient US-Canada history completely irrelevant to refuting the claim that the US would come to Canada's aid if we were attacked!


----------



## rifleman (5 Nov 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I guess I am, but I was suggestesting more importantly that the writer's premise is wrong: that the PM has no choice but to 'balance' Cdn. public opinion against US interests ... he is casting the PM in the victim's role.   While I don't disagree that this was likely the case here, I don't accept the idea that there isn't an alternative (like the PM shouldn't a victim of popular opinion and US interests but should rather concentrate on doing what is best for Canadian interests).



He did what was in the best interest of Canadians (probably the only time IMO)


----------



## FastEddy (5 Nov 2004)

rifleman said:
			
		

> I believe they'd have helped with the tools etc. but they wouldn't be in Afganistan or Iraq right now



I presume that you know this for a fact or have documented information that would support a indication of non-military intervention or action.
According to the general public opinion that they are always sticking their noses into things or places, starting wars, sending the Marines or being the World's Policemen, tends to suggest that they most likely would.
Or is this just another subtle, disguised way of American bashing


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Nov 2004)

I tend to agree with him.  Terrorism has been taking place around the world for a long time, and the US has never stepped in to stop it before.  In fact, in Kosovo they sided with known terrorist organizations against a soverign nation.  If an ally like France had been hit by an attack like 9/11, the US certainly would have provided humanitarian assistance, and if France had decided to invade Afghanistan the US probably would have assisted, but I seriously doubt that we'd be fighting a "war on terror" if the US hadn't been the target.


----------



## QORvanweert (5 Nov 2004)

you might be right that we wouldn't be fighting a war on terror if we hadn't been the target, but in GW1 France helped out the coalition even though it wasn't a target... and 'supporting terrorists against a soveriegn state' is a very dangerous proposition, I am sure you know the old mantra about 'one mans terrorist is anothers...'


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Nov 2004)

The KLA were on the US list of known terrorist organization.  Once Serbia invaded Kosovo, the KLA were suddenly "freedom fighters".  Their rationale for doing it might have been good and honourable, but that doesn't change the fact that they were helping a known terrorist organization.


----------



## QORvanweert (5 Nov 2004)

and America was on Britians list of 'terrorist states' during the revolution. whats your point? that we can't aid organizations for the greater good? because that is exactly what they have done twice in afghanistan.


----------



## banko (5 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> When Palestinians were dancing in the streets after 9/11, I would find it rather difficult to believe there was much "popular" sympathy for the United States. When a best selling book in France has as its thesis "the Americans staged 9/11", it is hard to think there is much sympathy.
> 
> Oddly enough, if the Jihadis had flown a plane into the Eiffel tower, or blown up some European or Asian cultural icon, the Americans would have been there as fast as possible with hardhats, laptops and tools in hand, while sending their military to the far corners of the Earth looking for the perpetrators. That, my friend, is why I would side with the Americans before the "rest of the world".



Palestinians were dancing in the streets because the US is such a close ally with Isreal. I agree that there would have been offers for humanitarian aid, but I'm not so sure about military aid. After the Bali bombings, I don't remember the Americans offering either...


----------



## banko (5 Nov 2004)

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> and America was on Britians list of 'terrorist states' during the revolution. whats your point? that we can't aid organizations for the greater good? because that is exactly what they have done twice in afghanistan.



And look where that got them, fighting OBL and his band of "Freedom fighters" after they flew planes into the world trade centre...


----------



## QORvanweert (5 Nov 2004)

banko said:
			
		

> And look where that got them, fighting OBL and his band of "Freedom fighters" after they flew planes into the world trade centre...


...and peace in Kosovo, eviction of the russians, support of taiwan, and end to the Nazi's.... not every idea works well, but the long term causes can't always be seen.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Nov 2004)

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> and America was on Britians list of 'terrorist states' during the revolution. whats your point? that we can't aid organizations for the greater good? because that is exactly what they have done twice in afghanistan.



   The greater good in Kosovo would have been keeping our noses out of it.   What exactly is YOUR point?   So what if the Americans were on Britains list of terrorist states during the revolution?   Did Brittain give them aid?   Ship them weapons?   Drop bombs on Brittish cities?   No, they fought AGAINST this "terrorist state".   They may have lost but at least they stayed true to their principles.   The fact that now, over a century later, the US and UK are allies has nothing to do with how the Brits viewed their wayward colonies back then.

   The US considered the KLA terrorists because that's what they were.   Kind of like a european version of the PLO.   They killed civilians, bombed government institutions, and generaly did bad sh*t all around.   The US, along with the rest of NATO, got scammed into beleiving that the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo, so they bombed Serbia and gave supplies and weapons to the KLA.   NATO beleived it's goal was just, so I can't fault them for fighting against the Serbs.  But I certainly can fault them for giving weapons to a group which has demonstrated that it has no compunctions about killing civilians.  I beleive that in Afghanistan they called that "sponsoring terrorism", and promised to show no mercy to any country which does it.


----------



## QORvanweert (5 Nov 2004)

With that in mind I retract my point.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2004)

I believe diplomacy in Kosovo was conducted by Clintonian America while the in Afghanistan was by Bushie America.   Comes with the turf when you are dealing with a democracy.   Elections and Consistency don't always coincide.

Besides it can be argued that Clinton was trying to do in Kosovo the very thing the Democrats criticized Bush for in Tora Bora - get the locals to do the work.   This is cheap and saves American lives.   Remember Clinton was the one that was all for commencing hostilities in Yugoslavia as long as his guys were in F16s cruising at 30,000 ft while the Canadians and the Europeans were the ones with the muddy and bloody boots.

NOTE:   This is not a knock on the US or the US Forces.   This is specific to Clinton and Clinton's policies.

Now tell me again why Clinton was such a great friend of the French while Bush is something other.....   Clinton wanted the French, along with the rest of the people with troops on the ground, to do the dying for him.


----------



## JBP (5 Nov 2004)

First off, to clarify things...

I never tried to "justify" 9/11. I only indicated partially WHY it happened. There is no justification for such an assault on humanity. Also, all you people are falling all over yourselves to defend the US in this instance but you fail to remember that 1.) There was NEVER any hard evidence of WMD and 2.) They STILL haven't found any. Not 1.

Also, you guys blab on about how France, Germany and Russia+China did all this illegal stuff with Iraq..


WHAT ABOUT when the US was selling arms and training openly with Iraq to support it's wars back in the 70's-80's (I'm not a historical buff yet)? What about how the USA trained and armed Osama and his friends (weapons+training worth 3 billion) so they could fight the soviets? What about the USA smuggling drugs into thier own country and others during the whole "Contra" problem in Central+South America? What about how the states had Noriega instituted as a CIA puppet and he SLAUGHTERED thousands of his own country's people?

I base my view of the Unites States of America on thier atrocities to humanity also. Furthermore, they have no right and don't belong in certain places. Remember the book+movie+story of Black Hawk Down? Why were they there? They certainly shouldn't have been! The people didn't even WANT, them there. They always stick thier nose where it isn't wanted. Remember when that Russian Sub a few years ago sunk and the Russians were trying to rescue thier sailors? They begged the US to help them, the US said they couldn't help because "The weather was too dangerous!"...... 

Hmm... Selective aren't they? The United States of America is b*llshit and full of two-faced presidents and leaders who will stop at nothing to take what they want.



> With all respect to Recruit Joe, if it comes to a choice between trusting the American view (even as espoused by the Bush Administration) and the view of the "rest of the world," I'll take the American view. As bad as it may sometimes be, consider the alternatives. The American people looked at world opinion and perfomed a collective analysis that somewhat paralleled what follows here....



At least Guardian was humanitarian in his response and I appreciate that although his views are different which is fine.

Not saying I can't roll with the punches but my god, holly everyone jump down 1 guys throat! There are people who have different opinions then certain groups obviously. There's an old saying, "If you don't got nothin' good to say, don't say nothin' at all!"... I think I'll follow that saying here in regards to the United States of Almight America. Since apparently the majority of people who posted to this thread would bend over backward and take it from the south I suppose. Look at both sides of the story folks, I've tried to be objective and like the US but unfortunately as of yet, I haven't found enough reason to justify me supporting many of thier actions. The people who live there are fine, individuals aren't the problem I have, it's the damn nation's Foreign Policy? Is it OKAY for me to not like it? Or I suppose that makes me a terrorist too right?  :

I suggestion some people who are very one-sided in regards to the USA research some of the above mentioned happenings. Familiarize yourself with the evil that nations' leaders have done. I'll try to familiarize myself with the good they've accomplished.

And honestly, I do not mean to come off as rude or ignorant (not knowing), and if I have offended anyone I truly apologize. I will read up on the USA and study people's views of them, maybe I'll learn something new to soften me up towards the US. In the meantime I won't be posting anything in regards to the USA.

Thanks for your time effort and input ladies+gents, always nice to see someone getting kicked around EH?


----------



## rw4th (6 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe, dude, you can argue, but you really need to get your facts straight before trying to make a point.



> Also, you guys blab on about how France, Germany and Russia+China did all this illegal stuff with Iraq..



The point you're missing here is that France, Germany, and Russia were doing this illegally by going against the UN sanctions and then trying to use the UN to maintain the status-quo so they can profit. These statements are in direct relation to pointing the inherent hypocrisy of â Å“the international communityâ ? not supporting the war.



> Remember the book+movie+story of Black Hawk Down? Why were they there? They certainly shouldn't have been! The people didn't even WANT, them there. They always stick thier nose where it isn't wanted.



They were there because the UN asked them to be there, same with the Canadians who were in Somalia. Remember: genocide, kids dying of starvation, that kind of thing.   As for the Blackhawk Down story, they decided to go after Aidid and his people to solve the problem. It failed because Clinton was a spineless *******.

Anyway, I could go on, but I suggest you read a bit and think about what you're saying.   Try to use examples that make sense. I'm not saying the US is all rosy and does not have any blood on its hands, but in comparison to all other nations/superpowers they are definitely the poster boys for human rights and freedoms.

You want to trash the US, go right ahead. I think you are probably one of those people who define being Canadian as being â Å“Not Americanâ ?; not a very good defenition by any measure.


----------



## Guardian (6 Nov 2004)

I've been away from my computer for a while, and it looks like the discussion got interesting while I was away.....

I appreciate the compliment, Recruit Joe... But I'm going to respond to your last here.



			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Also, all you people are falling all over yourselves to defend the US in this instance but you fail to remember that 1.) There was NEVER any hard evidence of WMD and 2.) They STILL haven't found any. Not 1.



One of my biggest problems with the Bush Administration was the way they justified the war. While mentioning other reasons in passing, they put all their eggs in the WMD basket - a rather dumb strategy, in my mind, because a smart opponent could simply have destroyed / moved the weapons / facilities before the hostilities commenced. As it appears, that very well may have happened....

I'll point out that there was a consensus in the West that Saddam was pursuing these programs - after all, he had used them before! There was questions about what stage he was at in his research, and about how to encourage him to comply with the resolutions, but I'll also point out that the inspection regime was in place and supported by the French, Chinese, and Russians (they wanted to keep inspecting!). They had some expectation that Saddam was up to no good. They chose not to enforce their own resolutions....

I would state that the war was still justified without any WMD, for the following reasons:

1) Saddam sheltered and supported terrorists. The US found the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking in Baghdad. Saddam paid stipends to the families of suicide bombers. terror training camps were found and destroyed. Convincing evidence has been found of links between his intelligence agencies and Al-Qaeda. In the post 9/11 context, and with the precedent of Afghanistan, taking out Saddam's regime was justified.

2) The First Gulf War ended with an understanding that Saddam would comply with UN resolutions from that point on, that he would give up his WMD programs, and that he would no longer threaten his neighbors. Since then, he moved his troops to threaten Kuwait at least twice, he "bobbed and weaved" on the WMD issue by refusing to give the WMD inspectors full and transparent cooperation, and the UN itself recognized that Saddam was refusing to comply with its resolutions (and stated as much in further resolutions!) The war therefore could have been justified on the grounds that Saddam had failed to comply with the agreement that ended the first war, and that therefore the first war was not over. (In hindsight, it was stupid to have stopped the first war - the coalition should have continued until the Ba'athists were removed...) 

3) The Kosovo precedent - that a nation committing horrendous human rights violations forfeits its sovereignty and that the international community is justified in taking action to protect human life. Saddam, immediately after the first war, slaughtered thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites (the reason why no-fly zones were put in place). Mass graves have since been found in Iraq. The world would have been justified in removing him on humanitarian grounds.

4) Saddam was a clear and present danger to regional security - in a region of strategic importance to the whole world. He started two wars of aggression (Iran and Kuwait). He developed chemical weapons and used them against his own people. He pursued a nuclear program - as was proven after Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor. He repeatedly threatened his neighbors. He threatened to send the Republican guard across Jordan to help the Palestinians - a threat the Israelis took seriously. He attacked a neutral nation during the First Gulf War (Israel). And he poured money and material into his military at a time when his people were in poverty. In short, Saddam was an unpredictable threat, known to attack others without warning or provocation, with a great amount of firepower at his disposal, and was seeking more. 

The US should have focused on these reasons equally with the WMD reason. They were totally justified on going to war on these grounds.



			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> I base my view of the Unites States of America on thier atrocities to humanity also. Furthermore, they have no right and don't belong in certain places. Remember the book+movie+story of Black Hawk Down? Why were they there? They certainly shouldn't have been! The people didn't even WANT, them there. They always stick thier nose where it isn't wanted.



Speaking of atrocities, our hands aren't clean either. Look at how we've treated the natives in our own country - confined them to squalid reserves and propped up corrupt chiefs, while giving handouts that do nothing to encourage personal responsibility or initiative but encourage dependence on a welfare state. Remember that we turned away shiploads of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. And in WW2, La Regiment de la Chaudiere (spelling?) developed a reputation for not taking prisoners, a violation of the laws of war, in retaliation for the summary execution of some members of their regiment by the SS. Remember that India's nuclear weapons were developed with Canadian nuclear technology. And I hate to bring it up, but the actions of certain individuals in Somalia (NOT the whole Regiment) were atrocities.

As for intervening where we're not wanted, the same argument could apply to us - we've sent troops everywhere.  In Cyprus in the 1970s, and in the Balkans in the 1990s, all sides were shooting at us. Somalia - we were there too, remember? And both Canada and the US were there with the justification of a Chapter 7 UN resolution. Are you saying that even with a UN resolution, intervention would have been wrong? Because every Canadian mission from UNEF in the Sinai to the recent deployment to the Sudan would therefore have been illegitimate. 



			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Remember when that Russian Sub a few years ago sunk and the Russians were trying to rescue thier sailors? They begged the US to help them, the US said they couldn't help because "The weather was too dangerous!"......



Can I ask for your source for this statement? If I recall correctly, the Russians refused assistance from European nations for several days until they realized they couldn't handle the problem themselves. Then they asked the Norwegians and the Brits to help, and they did. I'll opine that the US would never pass up the opportunity to assist in that case, because (a) it would make them look bad, (b) it's the wrong thing to do, and it's the Law of the Sea to help in those circumstances, (c) if the situation were reversed, the US would want to have the Russian option available if it was the only way to rescue American sailors, and (d) helping would offer the chance for Americans to collect intelligence on a rather secret aspect of Russian operations. Weather wouldn't have been a factor because the DSRV that the US uses for such rescues is flown to the closest port and then piggybacked to the site on a submarine.



			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Hmm... Selective aren't they? The United States of America is b*llshit and full of two-faced presidents and leaders who will stop at nothing to take what they want.



With all respect, you can do better than this, Recruit Joe. There are Americans who post on this board, and many of us have American relatives. We can disagree with their policies without slandering them. Let's keep the discussion civil and not resort to name-calling.

As for the two-faced leaders, look at our own politicians. Stopping at nothing - look at the attack ads by all sides in the recent election here. We're no better....

I guess my overall point is that no one is clean. You have to look at each situation on its own merits. Failing to do the right thing simply because your nation made mistakes in the past is a "two wrongs make a right" argument - it doesn't work. And I hope the US never adopts that line of reasoning - we'll be right back to WW1 and WW2 where things are coming apart and we have to talk them into coming to help us in the "nick of time." There is a strong isolationist sentiment in the US, and it almost cost us those two wars. Let's not encourage the isolationists any more - we still need the States.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2004)

Nicely reasoned post Guardian.

Cheers.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Nov 2004)

To Recruit Joe,

Let me be blunt: the fervor of your opinion in this case greatly exceeds the depth and accuracy of your wisdom.

If I can make one suggestion, move to an inductive versus a deductive reasoning model and you will reap great benefit.

Best wishes,



Matthew.


----------



## banko (6 Nov 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> ...
> 2) The First Gulf War ended with an understanding that Saddam would comply with UN resolutions from that point on, that he would give up his WMD programs, and that he would no longer threaten his neighbors. Since then, he moved his troops to threaten Kuwait at least twice, he "bobbed and weaved" on the WMD issue by refusing to give the WMD inspectors full and transparent cooperation, and the UN itself recognized that Saddam was refusing to comply with its resolutions (and stated as much in further resolutions!) The war therefore could have been justified on the grounds that Saddam had failed to comply with the agreement that ended the first war, and that therefore the first war was not over. (In hindsight, it was stupid to have stopped the first war - the coalition should have continued until the Ba'athists were removed...)
> 
> ...
> ...



Guardian I thought your post was great. I agree 100% that saddam was not co-operating with weapons inspectors and someone needed to do something about it (the UN sure wasn't). But, I've been looking into a few of the points you've made, and I wanted to put in my 2 bits...

As far as a link between Iraq /Saddam / Al Qaeda This article basically says there isn't one (except a lot of quotes from bush / cheney that basically contradict themselves and eachother)...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

... and then this one, dated October 5 says:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein, although he later backed off the statement and said he was misunderstood.

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: â Å“To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.â ?

Several hours after his appearance, Rumsfeld issued a statement from the Pentagon saying his comment â Å“regrettably was misunderstoodâ ? by some. He said he has said since September 2002 that there were ties between Osama bin Laden's terror group and Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/

I don't like the fact that the US said the Iraq war was justified because of WMD when there aren't any. If they would have started out saying "we want to go to war with Iraq because of his contributions to terrorist organisations, refusal to co-operate with UN inspectors, and his human rights violations" I would have supported them a lot more than going to war because of WMD and not finding any. Really, I guess it's a technicality...

One more thing...

Setting the record straight on the Kursk:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2000/08/17/009.html

"The admirals rejected the idea that an Oscar-2 sub could simply pop and go with its crew apparently killed or disabled almost instantly. Western offers of aid were also put aside so that NATO could not acquire precise information on how to sink the "unsinkable" sub. The navy did manage to make the Kursk into a mystery ship, but to the detriment of its crew."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,779176,00.html

"It was four days after seismologists had registered a powerful explosion at the bottom of the Barents Sea. On the other side of Russia, several thousand miles from the balmy seaside resort, relatives of the Kursk sailors were arriving at the Arctic port of Murmansk to find out whether anyone had survived. Officials claimed on national television that knocking sounds were audible from inside the hull, indicating that some men might still be alive, yet the Russian rescue effort had so far proved ineffectual. Offers of foreign assistance to help with the rescue operation had been ignored and outrage was mounting across the nation."

Blame for the Kursk rests solely on the Russians...


----------



## rifleman (6 Nov 2004)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I presume that you know this for a fact or have documented information that would support a indication of non-military intervention or action.
> According to the general public opinion that they are always sticking their noses into things or places, starting wars, sending the Marines or being the World's Policemen, tends to suggest that they most likely would.
> Or is this just another subtle, disguised way of American bashing



Its not american bashing, just looking at the past. They get involved when it affects them personnally.


----------



## JBP (7 Nov 2004)

Guardian, thank you for your post and advice. Well, well said and expressed.



> You want to trash the US, go right ahead. I think you are probably one of those people who define being Canadian as being â Å“Not Americanâ ?; not a very good defenition by any measure.



That is now how I measure myself as a Canadian though. I measure myself many other ways indeed and on of them being the ability to equally look at my mistakes and take them with a grain of salt and move on and learn. I do apologize for any offensive words, and your right it was bad of me to "name call" the entire US.

I'll be doing a lot of reading over the next while!

Joe
Peace


----------



## FastEddy (7 Nov 2004)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Its not american bashing, just looking at the past. They get involved when it affects them personnally.




Glad to hear that, its seems to be a popular trend today.

Your right on the involvement matter, its a hard call, but I will confess that I am Pro American and maybe turn a blind eye some-times.

Cheers.


----------

