Craven
OK- forget Canada for a moment-----would you agree that our INS is totally ineffective and ineffecient? We have 13 million aliens in this country and the INS has absolutely no idea where they are.
No I am certainly no isolationist, and LW is correct I don't want to indulge in the blame game. After all we sent our Vietnam draft dodgers to Canada now I guess it's OK for then to send a few al Queda to us!
BTW--LW--What kind of denial are we in? Please explain.
Short of isolationism I think it would be difficult to substantially change our immigration situation as there are simply many people who want to live in our country.
As to Canada they didn't send anyone. But we digress. Let's talk these issues on another thread. If anyone creates one just post a link here.
Craven
OK good, back to Iraq----I took note of your prediction about Dec the 8th. You could be right but what really worries me is the current evidence that Iraq has loaded every thing involving WMD onto vehicles and they move around-----don't ask me how that applies to their nuclear bomb making stuff.
I do remember how difficult it was to find the scud launchers that they moved around on trucks and hid during the day. Now these launchers are big-----and you would think very difficult to hide in the dessert.
Now they are apparently using van type trucks or motor homes to house these labs.
I really believe Saddam believes he can hide all this stuff and keep it secret from the inspectors. As you can remember he was always out of touch with reality but the fact remains---it will be very difficult to find this stuff.
I'm hoping the improved technology will facilitate things. Ideas like temporary no drive zones are also being brought up.
For the mobile WOMDs I hope that satellites and such zones will pinpoint them. With some other technologies that I'm too lazy to list things might be easier this time around.
But I don't think that the labs are being moved about that much. Maybe some stockpiles but not labs.
In any case the inspections will not be fast (unless they are interrupted). Blix is fond of telling everyone with an ear that it took 3 years to inspect a compliant South Africa.
There is a very good article in the NY Times on preparations for the war in Iraq. Just go to
www.nytimes.com
Craven de Kere wrote:Why do you say their immigration policy is out of control? My guess is that you'd prefer a more isolationist policy but why? As far as I know Canada doesn't have immigration problems.
Craven, actually Canada has become quite a haven for terrorists and other unsavory types because of their lax immigration policies and their welfare programs that subsidize their terrorist lifestyles.
This is a long-standing problem. The killer of Martin Luther King fled to Canada because it was easy to get a new identity there. All you had to do was find a Canadian citizen to vouch for you and you were good to go. No documentation required, not even a library card. The killer hooked up with a Canadian woman who gave him his reference. He hopped on a jet to England en route to Rhodesia where he expected to be hailed as hero, probably correctly so. However, he ran out of money and time. The Brits caught him after a pawn shop robbery.
Canada doesn't have the logistical problems we do with immigration, hence the fewer restrictions. Canada's immigration policy does, however, have nothing to do with this discussion and was brought up as a red herring (that Canadians can't opine due to their immigration policies).
Blatham,
I believe you are being a bit tough on perception and are, as well, employing a few of the rhetorical devices for which you have been pummeling him.
You have said variously that "this administration has had a plan or intent to invade Iraq since 1992" , and "certain members of this administration have held this plan or intent since 1992" . The second formulation is better in that this administration did not exist in 1992.
Perhaps the reason that Perception has not addressed your point is that it is so ..... pointless. Winston Churchill held the view that Hitler must be stopped for at least four years before he became Prime Minister. Did that evident fact in any way a invalidate his subsequent policy as PM or diminish its effectiveness? What is it, in your view, that is significant in the possibility that Dick Cheney, Condolezza Rice, Dick Rumsfeld, or Paul Wolfowitz may have held such views prior to January 20, 2000?
I certainly would expect that every senior member of our or any government would take office with some well-grounded world view and even some opinions on specific elements of policy.
In the matter at hand you go on to assert that among these pre-Jan 20, 200 opinions of some members of the present U.S. administration are a set of ideas pertaining to national strategy in the post Cold War world. A key part of this is that the United States should work to prevent the emergence of a "rival superpower". As a related matter, the view includes the notion that the United States should work to prevent or limit the proloiferation of Nuclear weapons and other WMD to North Korea, Iraq, and some of the former Soviet republics - using force in some conditions if that should prove necessary..
That this is certainly true is quite obvious. Indeed the above named individuals have all, in various writings and speeches clearly articulated exactly these ideas. Moreover, apart from the explicit reference to the use of force, these ideas have been imbedded in the various strategic and military policy statements of our government for well over a decade - even during the Clinton Administrations.
The United States did not explicitly seek world hegemony as did many of the various empires of the past. It fell to us at the end of a potentially deadly conflict with the Soviet Empire - a nefarious end product of European class conflict, tyranny and militarism. (Perhaps our situation is a bit like that of Rome at the end of the Third Punic War.)
Would you expect us (or any other like power) to have a policy that encouraged the emergence of rivals armed with the most deadly weapons? Really!!!!????? Can you offer a single precedent in human history for such a situation?
You also make reference for the need for a "Democratic process" among nations which must be favorably completed before we can act in the present situation. What is that "Democratic Process"? Who votes, and how are the votes to be counted? If your reference is to the Security Council of the United Nations, then you must acknowledge that we have indeed invoked this process. Please acknowledge also that, given the many Security Council resolutions that the Iraqi government has ignored and which have all gone unenforced, we have good reason to doubt the ability of that body to come to grips with a serious issue - one that threatens all but none so much as the United States.
Our President has made this point to the UN General Assembly and made clear our intent to act in our self interest and self defense, and, as well, for the enforcement of extant UN SEcurity Coucil Resolutions if the UN will not act. THis is indeed our right under the UN Charter.
Where's the beef??????
george
paragraph 2 - Yes, you are correct, the second formulation is more accurate.
paragraph 3 - read the two analyses posted earlier, then get back to me.
paragraph 4 - of course, but that skips neatly over the morally reprehensible act of being disengenous (deceitful) to the populace about why Iraq ought to be attacked. 9-11 being a handy motivator, let's toss that out as the reason. If you'll recall, that is what happened.
paragraphs 5-8 - on the matter of hegemony, first, you ought to provide some evidence for your claim re the Clinton administration. Second, as you likely know, Iraq and Osama, the bad guys, became BIG bad guys only through the assistance of the US (training, weapons, intelligence, etc), so I hope you'll pardon my cynicism regarding either the motives of US foreign policy or their ability to do it without screwing up rather badly. Whether the US sought hegemony earlier seems irrelevant. They seek it now. Why ought not China to think and act the same way? Say Iraq gets taken out, and after that, Korea. Does China then become the next target?
final two paragraphs - there is a fair bit here which I think clearly wrong. First, the US is surely not the main entity at risk from Iraq, but really quite far down the list, and far less threatened than Israel or Saudi Arabia, for example. Unless, of course, you talk about oil interests. Second, the US pretty openly does not consider the UN Security Council to be a body to which the US is junior. It becomes hard to justify why any other nation ought not to adopt the same stance. And of course, there is the relevant matter of inconsistency in how the US deals with Security Council resolutions (Israel). And the question presents itself quite immediately - 'did the administration engage in diplomacy to bring Security Council members on board with their agenda because it was the morally right thing to do (democratically speaking) or only because they were forced to out of logistics and strategic realities?'
I thought i'd just jump in here right quick with a "what the hell are you talkin' about." Lovey and i have looked over the paperwork needed for me to become a legal resident of Canada, and it is neither simple nor easy. I have to wonder where that information to which Tantor refers came from. Citing the example of James Earl Ray is truly disingenuous--he shot King in 1968.
Setanta
My ex-wife was American, with a parent born in Canada, and the process of gaining her merely landed immigrant status was no simple thing.
Tantor's post, particularly "... actually Canada has become quite a haven for terrorists and other unsavory types" seemed a bit too general and odd to respond to. We do have (always have had) an immigration policy that gives special treatment to folks who wish to leave situations which are particularly inhumane or dangerous. It's true that bad guys sneak in with that lot, but that's just as they do coming out of Cuba and landing in Florida. I have no stats on non-Canadians who've bumped against our legal system, but I'd guess that among all these groups of foreign citizens, it would be Americans as often as any other.
Setanta,
Ray was not trying to become a legal resident of Canada. He just wanted enough documentation to leave the country for Rhodesia via England. You can read the details in "Killing The Dream" by Gerald Posner.
Yes, you are right this happenned in 1968, which illustrates my point that this has been going on a long time without correction.
Tantor
Why do you assume that "this has been going on a long time without correction?" The laws of Canadia are not, to my knowledge, carved on the Niagara Escarpment, never to be erased nor altered. In the 1970's and -80's, "economic" refugees from all over the British Commonwealth began to flood into England and Canada. I've not researched the issue, but i believe that anyone who would do the research would find that a great many changes have been made since 1968. As for "enough documentation to leave the country for Rhodesia via England," i doubt that a library card would have sufficed--certainly very much different paperwork is needed to pass the borders of the Commonwealth than what is required to simply drive to Canadia, something i do about twice a month.
The point is that those terrorists who entered through Canada got through our borders and some were on an FBI list. We cannot blame the country they traveled through for letting terrorist enter through our
borders and get away with what they got away with. Sorry, there's simply no rationlization to let our government and its agencies off the hook.
Canadian immigration policy is still a red herring for the original intend of the thread. If one wants to believe Canadian immigration is bad, then take a look at Mexico - and Bush wanted that border basically removed. Haven't heard any policy change on that idea!
Anyway, what about Iraq, USA and the UN?
On the highly selective US administration notions of just who is and who isn't "an evil dictator, abusing his poor people". I've placed a small blue pail in the corner for all those who might get sick.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/14/opinion/14KELL.html
blatham, on the nytimes article, as disgusting as the actions of Saddam are (actually, many of the actions were also used by the USA to Prisoners of War in VietNam and Bush has said he wanted some of the Afgan prisoners to stay in the country they are caught in because the countries government knows what to do with them :wink: ) I digress, oh yeah:
Bush will kill in the first few moments of his ChickenHawk War more people than Saddam has killed in the last 30 years. And, there will be more Americans die than was in the 9/11 disaster + some. Oh well, so goes...........
Bill,
That's going to be tough to do. There were a million casualties in the Iran-Iraq War started by Saddam. That's going to be hard to top. I doubt that there will be a million casualties in the first few moments of the Iraqi invasion or in the entire war. My guess is that the Iraqi secret police are going to be doing most of the dying in this war. Quite frankly, they need to die. The sooner the better.
Tantor
