Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58291)	11/22/2002 12:47:58 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Published on Thursday, November 21, 2002 by the Mirror/UK Bush Aide: Inspections or Not, We'll Attack Iraq by Paul Gilfeather Perle called "The Prince of Darkness" says we'll attack no matter what. Former defense minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: "America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing. "This make a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq." GEORGE Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons. Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine. Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons program will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all- party meeting on global security. Former defense minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: "America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing. "This make a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq." Dr Perle told MPs: "I cannot see how Hans Blix can state more than he can know. All he can know is the results of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction." The chairman of America's defense policy board said: "Suppose we are able to find someone who has been involved in the development of weapons and he says there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find them because they are so well hidden. "Do you actually have to take possession of the nerve agents to convince? We are not dealing with a situation where you can expect co-operation." Mr Kilfoyle said MPs would be horrified at the admission. He added: "Because Saddam is so hated in Iraq, it would be easy to find someone to say they witnessed weapons building. "Perle says the Americans would be satisfied with such claims even if no real evidence was produced. "That's a terrifying prospect."

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58291)	11/22/2002 1:49:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

And he depicts Canada as facing a historic choice between junior partnership in an emerging American empire or committing itself more resolutely to the multilateral agencies and structures that offer a counterweight -- based on international law and treaties -- to tyranny and terrorism but also to U.S. political, economic and military might. This is indeed the crux of the multilateralists' arguments. On one side: American power. On the other side: a desperate attempt to restrain American power. This is not an argument over policy at bottom (or if it is, I have yet to figure what specific policies are being favored or disfavored). It is an effort to band together to stop America from doing whatever America is trying to do. Why else would these liberal champions of human rights find themselves effectively arguing for the right of Saddam Hussein to keep killing Iraqis and obtain nuclear weapons? There is not a single reason why they should take this side of the argument, save for the fact that America is taking the other side of it.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58291)	11/22/2002 2:33:48 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> Mr. Axworthy argues, in fact, that bringing charges against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein under the ICC could be part of an alternative to war. It's a move, he says, that could begin to seriously shake the dictator's support within Iraq and -- along with sustained pressure from the UN and other international bodies -- help bring about his downfall, by means other than a war with potentially explosive consequences for the Middle East. He adds that terrorism needs to be defined as a crime under international law with a multinational "constabulary" of police forces and tribunals established to bring perpetrators to justice. As proof of the futility of an all-out military assault on terrorism, Mr. Axworthy says, "just listen to the tapes" released last week, which showed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had survived the war in Afghanistan. "It's a matter of what works," he says.<< This is fantasy.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58291)	11/23/2002 6:28:26 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Lloyd Axworthy, one of our former foreign affairs ministers, is a bright enough guy but is mired in mild knee jerk socialism - he thinks all the world's problems can be solved by social work. And he defines Canadian nationaism as being different from the US not as something to do with intrinsic Canadian qualities. Lloyd never saw a straw man he couldn't set on fire: "Attempting to beat terrorists into submission through military action cannot be effective," Mr. Axworthy states. "There are too many pre-existing tensions, which military attacks exacerbate rather than quell. Military responses feed the anger, poverty, rhetoric -- the climate of grievance -- that create and sustain terrorist intentions." Who ever said military action was the way to defeat terrorism? Or it's the only way - which is what Lloyd is trying to stand up as straw man so he can knock it down. And he depicts Canada as facing a historic choice between junior partnership in an emerging American empire or committing itself more resolutely to the multilateral agencies and structures that offer a counterweight -- based on international law and treaties -- to tyranny and terrorism but also to U.S. political, economic and military might. This is absurd. We sit right next door to the US and have one tenth the population. We are going to be a junior partner regardless of our foreign policy. Now what sort of multilateral agencies and structures does he have in mind for delivering a blow to the likes of Saddam? Here's an example: Mr. Axworthy argues, in fact, that bringing charges against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein under the ICC could be part of an alternative to war. So who is going to arrest him for the ICC? It's a move, he says, that could begin to seriously shake the dictator's support within Iraq and -- along with sustained pressure from the UN and other international bodies -- help bring about his downfall, by means other than a war with potentially explosive consequences for the Middle East. But that's been going on for ten years and Saddam keeps killing people. Lloyd waves his hands continuously. Do a search on his brother, Tom Axworthy.