Chretien suggests Canada's decision not to join Iraq war vindicated
LOUISE ELLIOTT
Canadian Press
Thursday, May 22, 2003
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's decision not to join the war in Iraq has been vindicated by the U.S. failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction, Prime Minister Jean Chretien suggested Thursday.
"They didn't find (weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) so far, and we did not participate either, so it is for the people to pass a judgment, it is not for me," he said at a news conference.
He quickly added, "I was of the view that there was a need for more time."
Chretien, who said Canada would consider going to war only if a United Nations mandate was drafted and another deadline set, said other countries tipped the balance.
He said Americans and others in the coalition - which included Britain - were not "flexible" enough to allow a peaceful resolution.
"Perhaps if there had been a bit more flexibility not only on the part of Americans, but others, we might have succeeded, but we have done our best," he said.
U.S. President George W. Bush repeatedly argued that it was necessary to go to war without a UN mandate, charging Saddam Hussein's regime was hiding chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear arms program from UN weapons inspectors.
Chretien maintained the conflict and the resulting occupation of Iraq weren't Canada's normal way of doing business.
"Of course, the departure of Saddam Hussein, we are not unhappy about it, but it was not the normal way to change a regime there, and that was the position of the Canadian government and it's still the same."
Earlier this week, U.S. weapons teams began inspecting the dormant Tuwaitha plant, once considered the heart of Iraq's nuclear program, which has not been operational for years.
The Americans claim Iraqis had been using it to store declared nuclear materials that were prohibited and sealed by the UN nuclear agency.
By the time weapons teams showed up to inspect the facility, so much had been destroyed that it was impossible to know what was missing.
Approval to lift sanctions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein's regime invaded Kuwait in 1990 was granted Thursday in a UN Security Council vote.
The punitive trade measures were technically not allowed to be lifted until weapons inspectors declared Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction.
But the U.S. has refused to let UN teams return to Iraq, deploying its own inspectors instead. No evidence has been uncovered so far.
The resolution lifts economic sanctions without certification from UN inspectors, but it reaffirms "that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations" and says the council will discuss the mandates of the UN inspectors later.
Re: Canada's decision not to join Iraq war vindicated: Chret
Bogtrotter, I would like to hear what you mean when you say you are a die hard capitalist. What do you support, specifically?
As for the war, I didn't support it with WMD used as the predicate. I did support the removal of Houssein. Ultimately, Iraq will be better for it. I can only hope that democracy manages to survive there.
Re: Canada's decision not to join Iraq war vindicated: Chret
I'm very much an investor of capital, having a major financial and personal investment in free enterprise. Personally I think there are a lot of people who place their pocketbooks first. I won't support a governemt that has to lie in order to bring about a desired conclusion. The people of the wordld decide whether its right or not. There are peple dying there that is for sure, and the majority of Iraqis don't want the west there-that is a fact. It is is also a fact that tens of thousands of iraqis have died (including women and children) because of direct american invasion. Ultimately- whether Iraq itself is better off now than before is not really known.
Re: Canada's decision not to join Iraq war vindicated: Chret
Dude- i have voted conservative in the past. I'm a die-hard capitalist to the core. But I will NEVER subscribe to a war that did not provide acceptable proof for such massive destruction and death. I have three university degrees, my father is a british historian on US-Lion relations. Its a ****ed up region to be sure and Saddam was a brutal moron that did indeed kill thousands- but that was never on the table for a western invasion of the country. The US supported his actions inthe past (knowing full well he was an animal) The sole issue here is WMD- and as all sensible people suspected (as did most britons, aussies, canucks for that matter) these weapons never existed. The agenda here is doing what is right morally-not what is best for your country-and most people one would hope. You don't invade and kill thousands of people on a false pretense. If the conservatives in canada (Harper and other Bush apologists per eg) and the right wing faction of US society wanted a legit reason for invading- er here's a hint..tell the truth. The world will decide whether its right. I vote both ways dude- but this stuff the Bush admin gave on iraq is complete and total crap.
Re: Canada's decision not to join Iraq war vindicated: Chret
Speaking of right wing, I took a look at that new Ezra Levant magazine, the Western Standard... the new voice for neo-con Western Canadians. What a piece of shit... flip through it some time, it's actually quite offensive to normal people. I never had any intention of voting Conservative but after seeing how closely related the party is with this "antidote to the CBC" rag, there's no doubt anymore.
Re: Canada's decision not to join Iraq war vindicated: Chret
yeah, they are interesting bunch. a bunch of religious fanatics hiding behind the tag of 'conservatism'.
harper guy says his party is libertarian. quite the opposite. a bunch of farmers who believe in supremacy of their beliefs is far from libertarianism. check this out, emails between a real libertarian vs. the wanna be religious fanatics:
"We also ignore the rights of children, who are entitled to the best we can offer – a mother and father. I’m skeptical about the state but serious about marriage." :rollin THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Bookmarks