warhawk 0 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 The following was written by John Robson. He is a columist for the Ottawa Citizen in Ottawa Ontario. This just goes to show you that the Prime Minister of Canada does not speak for every Canadian like he claims. I am not posting this to start a political debate. This is just give people something to think about and nothing more. U.S. Should Stay In Iraq Two years after the attack on the World Trade Center, the war on terror is going so well that critics have the luxury of irresponsibilty. It is a privilege that they may come to regret. Briefly here is the scorecard right now. On the plus side, there hasn't been a second major act of terror against a target in the West (except the ongoing violence in Israel). The Taliban in Afghanistan were finished before the ink on the word quagmire could dry. Baghdad fell before the press had said the second syllable of Vietnam. On the minus side, no significant weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq. And both Afghanistan and Iraq remain turbulent. George Bush was pilloried by the smart set during the 2000 election for saying nation-building was hard and now he's being pilloried by them for failing to make it look easy. It's exactly the sort of cheap shot doubters may come to regret. For what practical recommendations flow from it? The U.S. is now in Iraq, so it either stays or goes. Which would the various canidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination suggest? That we shouldn't even be in this mess? But we are here and it is now. Having a tantrum won't help. Nor will secretly hoping for reverses in Iraq or elsewhere. So long as the war on terror is going pretty well, you can get away with it. But what if we're in a phase like the "phoney war" between the fall of Poland in the autumn of 1939 and teh fall of France in June 1940? Should another major terror attack occur it will be time to crumble or get tough and the critics don't seem to have a plan for either. Saying if I'd been in charge we wouldn't be starting from here won't merely fail to impress, it will reinforce the suspicion that your previous recommendations were based on equally daft wishfull thinking. Indeed, would any of the critics return Saddam Hussein to power if they could? Can any of them explain why he wouldn't co-operate with UN weapons inspectors? On that point we don't need to rewind history. What would they do about Iran radiating alarming signs of a WMD program? Asking the UN to deal with it proves you're not serious this time either. Your definately having a bad day when Maclean's exhibits greater geopolitical acumen than you do. But while critics have been crowing about George Bush seeking UN help, the Sept. 15 Maclean's "scorecard" called it a "No-win scenario for UN. Gives Bushies an exit strategy--and a scape goat for looming bloody years 'peace'." It didn't mention the apparent obvious solution: Reject the appeal with some sort of smart remark. And with good reason. The UN already proved it could neither obstruct nor assist the U.S. in the run-up to the Iraq war. If it can do neither in it's aftermath either, it becomes irrelevant to anyone seeking a practical agenda. As does Old Europe, which seems to employ the smart remark ploy. Even the Arab League has accepted the interim Iraqi government, albeit unhappily. Yet French President Chirac just said he and German Chancellor Schroeder scron the latest U.S. proposal as "quite far from what appears to us the primary objective, namely the transfer of political responsibilty to an Iraqi government as soon as possible." Cute how would the get there? Mr. Schroeder said the idea of German troops in Iraq made him "want to puke". Perhaps. But having the German chancellor hurl insults is not most people's idea of a practical diplomatic solution. And would Mr. Chirac do for Iraq what France did for Algeria, Lebanon, or Vietnam? Or do nothing, but in a sophisticated, world-weary way? In that Sept. 15 Maclean's, Paul Wells said "Certainty about the world does not make the world more certain. The easiest road to moral clarity is a refusal to learn from complex events. For a few horrible hours on two Septembers ago, nobody could claim to know anything. That uncertainty, at least, haunts us still. Or should." That's fine for 1935 or even November 1939. But imagine if after Dunkirk instead of fight-them-on-the-beaches, Churchill had opined that uncertainty haunts us still. The West is committed in Iraq because the U.S. is committed and Europe doesn't count. It has a population and economy of comparable size and, despite blather about militarism, the U.S. was spending less of it's GDP on defence before 9/11 than at anytime since Pearl Harbor. Europe just spent less. If America leaves Iraq and a geopolitical vaccum results, Europe will be unable to fill it. We are here and it is now. What should we do next? I very much hope the Americans keep a lid on Iraq. There's no effective terrorist action against a western target and critics continue to have the luxury of clever but pointless criticism. If not, their habitual stance of not wanting it to be will be pitilessly revealed as frivolous, fatuous and worthless. The above editoral appeared in the Windsor Star on September 13th, 2003. Stout Hearts Warhawk Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ReconSnake 0 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Well put. It is always nice to hear an opinion from someone independent enough to slice thru spin doctors and bureacratic slander & fluff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dannik 43 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Just a quick note: "Not all Canadians are against us." Is it even possible that Bush's "If you're not with us, you're against us" doctrine is narrow-minded? To disagree with a political movement doesn't mean one is intrinsically actively opposed to it. I'm glad you found a Canadian author who suits your point of view, but to imply that those who disagree are against you... poorly brought up, methinks. But hey, I'm just a Canadian. What do I know? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
warhawk 0 Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 (edited) @Dannik My statement of "Not all Canadians are against us" comes from conversations I have had with other US Citizens who feel the current mood of Canadians is one of just that. The comment was not directed to anyone in the way that you took it. For that I apologize. I am by no means implying that should someone disagree with me that they are against me. If I truely felt that way I would have some pretty bigs guns "after me" just on this forum alone. I am simply trying to show to the few Americans that do feel that way that they are misguided in their belief's. As a side note if you will review Reconsnake's post you will see that he for one understands fully what I was trying to point out as a secondary and more underlying statement. Stout Hearts Warhawk Edited September 14, 2003 by warhawk Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tyovan4 4 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 after spending time in Canada, I knew that not all Canadians were against us, the ones I spoke to were ashamed that Canada didn't help in Iraqi Freedom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Havok 30 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 The majority of Canadians were 'for' . People make fun of Bush being a tool....believe me , he has nothing on our PM Chretien. "The proof is the proof and when you have the proof, it is proven" I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
warhawk 0 Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 @=UAL=Havok I know what you mean. See if you remember this quote.... "There are no terrorist in Canada" Stout Hearts Warhawk Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Havok 30 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 (edited) Yeah...after CSIS has been warning them for years. I guess those 19 guys busted in TO and sitting in jail are just innocents? They were taking flying lessons with paths over the Pickering nuclear plant, which I just happen to be able to see out my window right now. Or the Millenium bomber creep who lived in Montreal for what..5 yrs? Don't mean to hijackl the thread but I get hot about this country and their b.s. immigration laws. Some of those 19 have been released on bail btw. Pitiful ! Edited September 14, 2003 by =UAL=Havok Quote Link to post Share on other sites
budgie 1 Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 (edited) I'm seeing a lot of columnists writing on "Why it would be wrong for the US to pull out of Iraq", but so far I haven't seen any of the arguments they are supposedly trying to counter. Has anyone actually suggested, in any reasonable publication, that America should leave Iraq now? Are the right just looking for 'lefties' and 'commies' and 'peaceniks' to disagree with? Many have suggested the US shouldn't have blundered in to start with, but now that it's done and the tyrant is deposed, most parties (except for the terrorists) seem to agree upon a broadening of the occupation, preferably under UN auspices - at least with a little help from around the world. Even Bush as had to backtrack from his 'go it alone' approach. No, we should not leave Iraq to become a vacuum of poverty and extremism. On that much at least, all agree. So, apart from when he talks about opposition before the war, I don't know what that reporter is on about. Edited September 15, 2003 by budgie Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.