[Para]

o.O;;
so much to read but it seems that no one mentioned the Canadian Compromise.

What is the Canadian Compromise?
The Canadian compromise was actually a plan to bridge the gap between the French, Germans, Chinese etc. and Americans and British.
How?
The Canadian compromise focused on several issues.
The one main issue was disarmament.
Target dates would be set for Iraq to disarm certain weapons found that violated the U.N.'s policy of no weapons of mass destruction. At each target date, the security council will be updated on the progress of disarmament for each target date. If Iraq continues evasion then all means by using force to disarm will be used. The dates are set to keep pressure on Iraq and provide no room for them to evade.
Quote: "Iraq should be left in no doubt exactly what is demanded of it on substance, not just on process, leaving no "wiggle room."


Here?s the thing, we don't have enough information to support the fact that Iraq does or does not possess weapons of mass destruction. There's speculation and rumours but none of them possess enough credibility to become evidence. So going to war without proving Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction would be still unethical. Many people would be killed for no reason. That would be committing an act of dishonour. Bush would be seen as a total bully towards mid east countries. The Canadian Compromise is to make sure that Iraq does fully cooperate to prove themselves as a clean country by setting dates and making Iraq reveal their cards or face force.

However to acknowledge the other side, what if Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction? What if Iraq was evading the inspections? Then if Iraq was provided "wiggle room", in the future they can be a threat because they have the developed technology ready to use at hand. War would have a just cause. The Canadian Compromise would have role to play since they keep Iraq under heavy watch, Iraq cannot evade. If there was evasion and Iraq did not fully cooperate with UN inspectors, one can tell that Iraq is definitely hiding something and war would be just.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/document..._proposal.html
link for information about the Canadian compromise

if bush went with this compromise, then his credibility for supporting war wouldn't be criticized as much because he would have shown he gave peace another chance. it would?ve gave the US a better image because they are supporting a plan outside the security council. 6 non permanent countries supported the Canadian compromise but the two main 'leaders' bush and the French president would not give in. So events have ended into this.

in my opinion of things, I admit I dunt know much but either Iraq possessed or did not possess weapons of mass destruction, at least we knew we gave peace a chance and the credibility for war would been better.

Bush in my opinion hasn't stated the true intentions of war. He has raised tensions all over the world. Conflicts between N.korea and s.korea have worsened because of Bush's comment of "axis of evil". President Clinton was doing a good job of bringing them together until Bush's come to power. Clinton in my opinion would?ve been the better choice for president if he went to seek re-election. Another reason i favour him is because he had a lot better relationships with Canada than the republic party. Heck, Chr?en and Clinton would fish and golf with each other like two close buddies. After bush's policies, Canada and US have worse relationships now.
I don?t blame all Americans for the events that have happened now.... just your hard headed leader who seems to thrive on bullying others. Threatening Iraq, calling countries axis of evil and even showing an indirect threat to allies ? get on side, or else.

What I thought was that Bush is VERY LUCKY to have the support of the British otherwise the US government would definitely look real bad at this position.

What do you guys think?? Do you think the Security Council should've adopted the Canadian Compromise? I think things would've been better that way considering what has happened now.

[Para]

pfft cmon ppl lets get some responses and feedback >.<

[Zeebo]

I would so prefer what you mentioned right there......

[Davion]

Didn't you post this in the war topic?

And, per chance, are you Canadian?

[Para]

i took it out of the war topic and well considering on the quickie info on the side bar on the left saying Nites is from Canada yes i am and proud to be canadian.

[Davion]

President Clinton was doing a good job of bringing them together until Bush's come to power.

I'm sorry, but I just have to say how amazingly wrong that is. N. Korea was still doing their forbidden labwork even while Clinton was working out the treaty. Bush had nothing to do with it. He wasn't even President when the N. Koreans were lieing to Clinton's face.

[2Xtreme]

Nites, I can assure you that I read your whole post, and I wholeheartedly agree. It's nice to see a fellow Canadian speaking up, especially one with some common sense.

[Mazarin]

Now please take no offence in my reply. I'm am in now way slaming Canadians. There seem to be just as many missinformed people in our own country.

I'm all for peace. I would love if we didn't have wars, and no one had to die.

But Earth is no Heaven.

Evil will not go out quietly. Nazism, Facism, Anti-Semitism, Comunism, and Slavery didn't, what makes you think Saddam will?

The thing that bothers me the most, is all these people who don't know what their talking about, saying this is Bush's fualt, how we should't go thru w/ "Bush's Oil War." If you pay one iota of attention to reality, and see it with your own eyes, you can't deny that the U.S. and Bush have tried to reason, and get UN support. It's the liberal media. Why was no stink raised when Willy Clinton went into Kosovo w/o UN support? Or Bosnia? We didn't hear ANYTHING about people against it in the news. And Clinton truly was unilateral in going to Kosovo and Bosnia. Bush is NOT going into Iraq unilateraly. We have Britain, Portugal, Australia, and Spain. By no means is this a unilateral campaign. And how come Hans Blix, possibly the most ignorant man in exsistance, dosen't talk about all the different weapons the inspectors have found? The new drones? The cluster bombs? Hans Blix was on MTV, of all the places he could be, and you know what he said? He dosen't care about Iraq and their weapons, he's more worried about GLOBAL WARMING. What kind of idiot is this guy? I wouldn't let this guy take my order @ Hardee's, let alone, control inspections of a lunatic. Seriously, Saddam's had 12 years to dissarm, and he hasn't. The UN has put up 17 resolutions, and he's ignored them. Why the hell would he dissarm in 7 days, 2 months, or another year? He has nothing to worry about. All the UN does is say, "Now don't you do that!" He does it anyway. He get's found out, then the UN says, "You better get rid of that in a month." In a month, it's still there. So the UN says, "Ok, well you better get rid of that in another month." They won't do shit.

All these protesters saying "No War" "Stop Violence" and other utopian banter are using the same weak-assed B.S. kids in 7th grade are saying:

"War is bad. They should talk it out and be friendly to each other so everyone could be happy!"

"So how do we do that?"

"Well... war is bad! They should reason with each other!"

You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

And why would France be so against it? Perhaps because Iraq buys it's weapons and machinery from them, along w/ some mysterious shipment of ricin...

And what about once we're done w/ kicking Saddam's ass? You know who'll come knocking? Russia will want their pay back from Iraq, along with Germany, France, and China wanting the oil. What should the US do then?

Now, before I get flamed, I respect opinions with merrit. Even if they don't agree with mine. But to throw out mindless ideas of utopia without giving a way to solve it otherwise is a waste of my time. And to belittle and mock a president and military that is trying to keep you safe on top of that, is just downright anti-American.

[Ness]

Here's my reply:
It is clear that you Canadians just don't like Bush. Whether it's because he's a conservative (which is why I think you hate him) or for something else you just don't like him. No matter what he's does you guys will make seem like it's the wrong thing. If Bush donated 4 billion dollars to the international redcross you would find some way to hate him for it.

You also said that the American and French leaders denied the agreement, but I don't see you dissing the Frenceh. This is even more proof that you don't like Bush. Also we DO have proff that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. We overhear phone calls and have sattlite images of weapons being moved from place to place before inspectors get there. You didn't know that did you? Most of these anti-American people don't.

Mazarin wrote:
And why would France be so against it? Perhaps because Iraq buys it's weapons and machinery from them, along w/ some mysterious shipment of ricin...

That is 100% ture. China, Russia, and France make thier money selling weapons to countries we don't because no one wants thier sucky weapons. They only want ours.


Also during the Clinton years we found several tunnels that lead into South Korea that the North Koreans can use for an invasion. And like Mazarin said, the North Koreans were lying to Clinton about thier weapons, but they admitted it when Bush got here.

Alot of you anti-Americans are very misinformed.

[Para]

On 2003-03-19 00:24, Mazarin wrote:
Now please take no offence in my reply. I'm am in now way slaming Canadians. There seem to be just as many missinformed people in our own country.

I'm all for peace. I would love if we didn't have wars, and no one had to die.

But Earth is no Heaven.

Evil will not go out quietly. Nazism, Facism, Anti-Semitism, Comunism, and Slavery didn't, what makes you think Saddam will?

The thing that bothers me the most, is all these people who don't know what their talking about, saying this is Bush's fualt, how we should't go thru w/ "Bush's Oil War." If you pay one iota of attention to reality, and see it with your own eyes, you can't deny that the U.S. and Bush have tried to reason, and get UN support. It's the liberal media. Why was no stink raised when Willy Clinton went into Kosovo w/o UN support? Or Bosnia? We didn't hear ANYTHING about people against it in the news. And Clinton truly was unilateral in going to Kosovo and Bosnia. Bush is NOT going into Iraq unilateraly. We have Britain, Portugal, Australia, and Spain. By no means is this a unilateral campaign. And how come Hans Blix, possibly the most ignorant man in exsistance, dosen't talk about all the different weapons the inspectors have found? The new drones? The cluster bombs? Hans Blix was on MTV, of all the places he could be, and you know what he said? He dosen't care about Iraq and their weapons, he's more worried about GLOBAL WARMING. What kind of idiot is this guy? I wouldn't let this guy take my order @ Hardee's, let alone, control inspections of a lunatic. Seriously, Saddam's had 12 years to dissarm, and he hasn't. The UN has put up 17 resolutions, and he's ignored them. Why the hell would he dissarm in 7 days, 2 months, or another year? He has nothing to worry about. All the UN does is say, "Now don't you do that!" He does it anyway. He get's found out, then the UN says, "You better get rid of that in a month." In a month, it's still there. So the UN says, "Ok, well you better get rid of that in another month." They won't do shit.

All these protesters saying "No War" "Stop Violence" and other utopian banter are using the same weak-assed B.S. kids in 7th grade are saying:

"War is bad. They should talk it out and be friendly to each other so everyone could be happy!"

"So how do we do that?"

"Well... war is bad! They should reason with each other!"

You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

And why would France be so against it? Perhaps because Iraq buys it's weapons and machinery from them, along w/ some mysterious shipment of ricin...

And what about once we're done w/ kicking Saddam's ass? You know who'll come knocking? Russia will want their pay back from Iraq, along with Germany, France, and China wanting the oil. What should the US do then?

Now, before I get flamed, I respect opinions with merrit. Even if they don't agree with mine. But to throw out mindless ideas of utopia without giving a way to solve it otherwise is a waste of my time. And to belittle and mock a president and military that is trying to keep you safe on top of that, is just downright anti-American.

The point is that how do we even know Saddam is even planning anything for us??? Let's put it this way. Countries have weapons and armies. For what?? To defend themselves. Just because Iraq has some weapons doesn't mean that they are planning to use them against other countries. So far no one still hasn't proven that Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction. That is the key point.

I may be safe but what about all those people who are fighting for their lives? Innocent people will be killed because Bush believed it was safer that way?? I am not anti american but i am anti american republican policies.

You also have not acknowledged what the Canadian Compromise will do if it was implemented. The compromise was designed to give Saddam no wiggle room so he MUST disarm or face war. However the compromise gives them a series of tests. If he failed a test, war would be justified because Saddam did not comply. This is different from what Bush is saying because Bush wants a regime change. He wants a regime change because he thinks Saddam is a threat but yet he has not provided credible evidence to even support that. So how do you expect people to even attack a person when hes not even proven guilty??

to ness

Also we DO have proff that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. We overhear phone calls and have sattlite images of weapons being moved from place to place before inspectors get there. You didn't know that did you? Most of these anti-American people don't.

Technology can be manipulated easily. You and I both know that. How can we be 100% sure that it is real evidence? And how do we even know that those were weapons of mass destruction being moved around?? These are only assumptions made. They are not true facts. Americans only implied that they were weapons of mass destruction.


From what've seen is that there has been a lot of propaganda and miscommunication. This is what led the event to this. >.>a;;

My opinion is that: so far there is not enough credible proof to support war.

Also during the Clinton years we found several tunnels that lead into South Korea that the North Koreans can use for an invasion. And like Mazarin said, the North Koreans were lying to Clinton about thier weapons, but they admitted it when Bush got here.

maybe those tunnels were already there but the americans just never discovered them. did you not see the reunion between the north korea citizens and the south korean citizens? i did not see hatred... i saw families crying.... crying because they were finally reunitied with eachother... i saw people saying "my sister!!" and they hugged. these people dont have much intentions on killin eachother.. its just the government.

you say that the north koreans did admit about their weapons
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/
but yet you have failed to include why would they would reveal it? as we know, some north koreans don't like the U.S.? Why? Well... Bush has done many things to alienate the north koreans...
"Axis of evil"?? that is very impropriate... If the U.S. wanted to help reunite the north and south, they should've thought better than to call another country evil.