It's a just war

As a good Canadian, and generally peaceful person, I say I naturally had misgivings. I've marched in my share of peace demonstrations - in university, and after I joined the real world.

And like many good people around the world, my gut initially questioned the U.S.-led drive to oust Saddam Hussein. Did all those clever cynics crowing about how it was really Bush's "Daddy's war" and "all about oil" have a point? Was there really a 9/11 connection or was Saddam just a stand-in for the elusive Osama bin Laden?

In part, because of the arguments and evidence we've all heard, from the eloquent Tony Blair, the elegant Colin Powell and others. In part, because I understand, as many Canadians instinctively do (even if our prime minister doesn't) that terrorism and the rogue states that sponsor it have to be crushed. In part, because of my first-hand observation of the dysfunctional UN earlier this month.

But what really convinced me this war was right was the behaviour and arguments from the other side - so wrong, in so many ways.

The arrogant, juvenile, pedantic, illogical, smarmy, smug and offensive nonsense spouted by so many of this war's opponents pushed me over the edge.

It's the sort of stuff I'd hope no self-respecting Canadian would want to be associated with.

Alas, much of it is coming not from fringe extremists, but from actual elected members of our Parliament.

Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish: "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards." Liberal cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal: "(U.S. President George Bush has) not only let Americans but the world down by not being a statesman." Liberal MP Janko Peric: "Do you think President Bush really cares about Iraqi people? I don't think so." NDP MP Svend Robinson: "It may very well be that many of us consider Bush a war criminal." NDP MP Bill Blaikie: "(Bush is) planning every minute of his life to kill as many Iraqi children as he can."

This isn't healthy dissent, it's pathological petulance. Nor is it the isolated ranting of a few bad apples. On the contrary, their bosses condone this stuff - including Canada's boss.

Indeed, Jean Chretien is the single person most responsible - other than Saddam, that is - for my stance on this war.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Chretien has rarely put a foot right. He has never made a strong, articulate statement against terrorism. He has never addressed the nation - and when he did talk about 9/11, he blamed it on our "greedy" society. He has shamefully neglected the Canadian victims and shrugged off terror threats to and within this country.

As for Iraq, he waffled on whether or not a war resolution was needed at the UN. In the end, he decided Canada's position was whatever the UN's position was - and since the UN failed to get its act together, the war was "not justified."

No debate, no discussion of what Canada stands for, whatever that may be. No troops, no support for our greatest ally and friend. It's shameful, and millions of Canadians think so.

No one can predict war's outcome, but I and others trust that it must result in a better Iraq (we will, of course, hold the U.S. to its lofty promises - the U.S. being the only country in the world that's expected to wage a politically correct war).

And if all goes well, the positive results will ripple well beyond Iraq. Already the UN and all its flaws have been exposed (along with some of the weapons France, et al. insisted Saddam didn't have), which could clear the way for a new and improved world institution. Dare we hope the same for Canada, where the Liberals and their would-be leader have been exposed as no better than Chretien - heedless of history and duty? ("Regime change," anyone?)

We can only hope someone, somewhere, will emerge to give voice to the anger and frustration that I and so many other Canadians feel right now. So far, the only politician in Canada who's even tried has been Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, who last week made a stirring appeal not just for supporting our allies but for the values on which Canada was built.

As he said, this war is about doing what's right. Not following the polls, not trying to have it both ways, not slapping back at the big American giant like a cranky child. It's about stating what you believe in and sticking to your guns (assuming you have any).

It's a defining time for us all, individually and as a nation. I, for one, refuse to be defined by the way my country's current leaders - and their whiny acolytes - have defined Canada.

Interesting... I said that the majority of the world wanted to give Blix a few more weeks. You chided me for not offering evidence of this. Then in your next sentence you yourself cite three major nations (France, Russia, and China) who demanded exactly that.

Then you go on to suggest ulterior motives for those nations -- but you offer absolutely no evidence. Nor do you offer any evidence for your interpretation of "severe consequences".

But never mind all that. There's only one question I'd like you to answer: If you don't believe in democracy, then just how do you think international disputes should be settled?

"A few more weeks", turns quickly to "progress is being made", which turns quickly to "What has Michael Jackson done now?

The news cycles of this world are incredibly short at this point in history and it's hard to keep a focus on one issue. You do realize that on an almost daily basis the Iraqi military had targeted or actually fired on Allied planes in the no fly zone, right? How often did we hear this?

From March 1, 1991 to September 12, 2002 (that is exactly 4,183 days) Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the cease fire. During those 4,183 days, the UN passed an additional 15 resolutions, or one every 278 days, to "compel" Saddam to abide by his agreement. On average every 278 days the world community realized he wasn't behaving and chastized him by writing another unenforced resolution.

How many days was it since Bush made his speech to the UN last September 12th? It was 188 days. 188 mornings that the "World Community" woke up and decided not to enforce it's cease-fire document. Do you really think that an extra 14 or even 28 days would matter to them?

4,128 days of defiance, 278 days on average between reprimand. 14 to 28 days would have made a difference? Not a chance.

A child who was born on March 1, 1991 would be 12 years old by now. A child born on March 1, 1991 would now be old enough to recognize the problem. France, Germany, Russia, Canada, and like minded people have do not have the recognition capabilities of a 12 year old. How sad.

By the way, in answer to your question in a straight forward way, a couple of weeks would not have been possible logistically. The desert heats up quick and if we were to wait until the end of April to move, the daily average temp rise to 90+ degrees in the desert. By the end of May it is closing in on 100 degrees every day.

At that point, we might have had to wait until October to move in so our guys aren't dying from the heat in a literal sense. That would be an extra eight months to keep our guys there. Eight months of stress away from the family. Eight months of stress being on alert. Eight months of paying the cost from the budget.

No, better to go when the weather is favorable and to stop the delaying tactics of Saddam.

So, in your tally system, three nations equal a majority? What a putz!

Is that your so-called international democracy? To simply count up all the counties of the world and if a simple majority of countries is in favor of one position or another then that is what all countries must do? It is one country, one vote, with no consideration given to the size and power of the country?

Or is it what the majority of people want that counts?

If so, do you truly think that the people of China and India are educated and have access to enough information such that they are able to make an informed decision about matters as important as the security of the United States? It seems to me that the people in China are not even allowed to participate in democracy in their own country, so why should they be determining American policy?

You spout off silly, undefined notions like "international democracy" and pretend that you have the moral high ground, when in fact, you have nothing other than unrealistic, wishful thinking.

"But never mind all that. There's only one question I'd like you to answer: If you don't believe in democracy, then just how do you think international disputes should be settled?"

The past is prologue, you silly fool.

Do me a favor, read the history of the world for the last four thousand years or so, paying particularly close attention to exactly how international disputes have always been settled. Check out what happened to those peoples who depended on international agreements as compared to those peoples who placed their trust in a strong defense.

Human nature has not changed in the last four thousand years and neither has the way international disputes are settled. For the foreseeable future, Clausewitz's famous dictum - that war is diplomacy by other means, will continue to be true.

How I think international disputes should be settled is irrelevant. In a perfect world, children would never die and monsters like Stalin, Mao, and Saddam would not have existed. In the real world, the one that you and I live in, unreasonable, blood-thirsty, dictators exist and we are given the option of killing or being killed.

"Had Bush been willing to wait, he would eventually have had a true world majority on his side. As it is, he's given every tinpot dictator a justification to invade his neighbor whenever he feels "threatened". Not to mention the boost he's given Bin Laden's recruiting efforts."

As if a tinpot dictator has ever needed a justification to invade a neighbor. The only calculation they make is, "Can they get away with it or not?"

As is the Arabs would have been delighted to support the war against Iraq, if only we had waited "a few more weeks". Many Muslims hate the USA because of religious hatred whipped up by their fundamentalist mullahs. The way to put a kink in Laden's recruiting efforts is to kick the hell out of Iraq, thus demonstrating our resolve and determination not to be intimidated. These people will not love us, but we can make sure that they fear and respect us, and that is good enough.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I took a couple of days to think about them myself, because there is some truth in what you said.

I too am frustrated by the UN's apparent paralysis. I was scratching my head five years ago at how Saddam continued to ignore his commitments and yet the UN simply piled one resolution on another. I would have been supportive of military action years ago.

But for me, the paramount considerations are the principles of democracy and due process. (As far as I'm concerned, democracy is an axiom -- I'm not interested in debating with those who don't acknowledge it.)

As you say, this has been going on for twelve years now, so another few months more or less isn't going to make much difference, either to the UN's credibility, which is already damaged, or to the threat posed by Saddam, which IMHO was minimal from an American perspective and virtually nil as long as the inspectors were on the scene.

On the other hand, it really hasn't been that long in diplomatic terms since the United States began pressuring for military action. I believe that another few weeks or months could have made the difference. Certainly there were a number of countries who were favourably considering a resolution explicitly authorizing war after a fixed period of time (which was still being negotiated). There might have been a veto or two, but IMHO that wouldn't make much difference. A simple majority in favour would have provided enough moral authority to justify action.

Although I personally believe that war is more than justified in this case, I don't believe that one or two nations should ever arrogate to themselves the decision to invade a foreign country. I see this principle as being far more important in the long run than the small benefits to be gained by unilateral action now. If it has to wait till October, then so be it. (And I don't buy this "coalition" stuff -- everybody knows this is an American war, with the willing assistance of the Brits and a number of smaller countries going along for the ride.)

However, the battle has been joined, for better or for worse. I hope it will be quick and successful, and I hope that the blowback will be minimal -- though I fear that neither will be the case.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.