 |
| |
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
Toronto (Toronto Star) - The United States is heading down a dangerous road that leads away from the United Nations by demanding that Iraq change its president, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said today.
The concept of "regime change," as stated by the White House, is a dangerous one that doesn't fit with United Nations resolution 1441, Chrétien said as he wrapped up a state visit to Mexico.
And he wondered who would be next on the U.S. list of unpopular leaders and where it would all stop.
"If it is a changing of regime, it's not what is 1441," Chrétien said following reports that Washington wants not only disarmament, but also a new president in Iraq.
"And if you start changing regimes, where do you stop?," a charged-up Chrétien asked during a news conference.
"This is the problem, who is next? Give me the list, the priority list."
The idea of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office is not part of UN resolution 1441, which requires Iraq to eliminate any biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in its possession.
Chrétien said the disarmament of Iraq is the key issue.
"The official policy is the disarmament of Saddam Hussein," the prime minister said in French.
"I'm surprised to hear now we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein; it's a change of regime. And as far as I am concerned, I believe these are very severe consequences because of change of regime."
Chrétien's strong statement came in response to a question about remarks made in Washington earlier today by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Asked by a reporter whether U.S. President George W. Bush wants both the disarmament of Iraq and exile for Saddam, Fleischer replied ``it's disarmament and regime change."
The U.S. administration has stated since last year that it wants to see a new leader in Baghdad.
But calls for regime change were toned down after Washington decided last fall to seek UN approval before taking military action against Iraq.
"I'm OK, I only have 11 months to go," Chrétien said, referring to his plans to step down. "But how about somebody else? So this is a very dangerous concept."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
You know I wonder where this fad LOOK AT US WE ARE CANADA WE DON'T DO ANYTHING USA WANTS NOW attitude is going to get us. Honestly... if we keep it up for another decade, even a country like N Korea could assemble a little flotilla to cross the pacific and murder us. We expect our brothers to help, but at that point - should they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
Zylka, the US has no real leverage over us. Playing nice gets us sh*t all in trade concessions, as we've seen over the last 5 years, and playing the ball how we see it won't hurt us. |
Ok I agree, especially in that that's the end we discuss
...but I'm starting to really wonder, can't we just do what's morally "right" in a situation like this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch X
If Chretien keeps saying stuff like this, he might be next.
How about it, canucks? Feel like being liberated from French occupation? |
You make his point, eh.
Nice thing about this Iraq mess is the masks are torn
and we all get to see our friends and enemies TRUE
colours.
Seems some of our former "friends" have no problem
with the idea of conquest and conversion by the sword
while paying lip service to freedom for all men.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
This is kinda silly. Canada is sending another frigate to replace the one that had the accident.
Canada is NOT sending ground troops, as the 2000 they are sending to Afghan exhausts their ability to project force. Which is fine with me, Im sure they'll do a good job in Afgan.
Canada's position at the UN has not aligned completely with the US, but not with France either. It doesnt surprise me much, given Canada's strat position and the makeup of the current govt.
Of course the distinction between regime change and disarmament is silly, given that Chretien seems to accept the notion of disarmament by force. Once a couple of hundred thousand coalition start marching around IRaq to disarm it, theres no way a regime based completely on force can survive.
List - there is no list of course. For several reasons -
1. Iraq is legally unique - no other country has the same legal obligation to disarm that Iraq does, for reasons going back to the end of Gulf War 1.
2. We do have issues with countires that support terrorism, but since at this point we have made no publci ultimatums on this issue (other than to the Taliban) it is yet to be seen how alleged terrorist supporters will respond, or how the world will view US claims of terror support.
3. IF Iraq goes well, we will have sources of leverage in the region that will make force less important OTOH if things go badly, the whole policy will be dead in the water.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2003 03:58
This seems to be exactly what your Prime Minister is trying.
|