Canada supports War

[MrVicchio]

PM says UN resolution 'will authorize action'
Last Updated Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:08:58
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien has made his clearest statement yet about Canada's position on Iraq.


INDEPTH: Iraq: U.S. military buildup

In an interview with Canadian Press, Chr�tien says if the UN weapons inspectors find evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, a second UN resolution authorizing force would not be necessary before an invasion.

Jean Chr�tien (CP Photo)
"The report of (chief UN weapons inspector Hans) Blix, if he says (Saddam Hussein) is not conforming, he has not disarmed, Resolution 1441 will authorize action," Chr�tien told CP.

"Perhaps some people will want to have another vote. I'm not there, I don't vote there. But let's follow the process."

For weeks the opposition parties in Parliament have been trying to draw out the prime minister: whether he believes a second resolution is needed, whether he believes Iraq is in "material breach" of the resolution, or if he believes the U.S. would be justified in launching an attack against Iraq without specific UN approval.

Chr�tien's comments to CP seem to indicate he believes the resolution passed by the UN late last year is enough. France, a permanent member of the Security Council, disagrees and says it wants another resolution passed by the council authorizing the use of force.

The prime minister said he will be interested to see what evidence U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell produces next week at the United Nations to prove the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Chr�tien also denied that his cabinet is divided over Canada's position on Iraq.

[Doobz]

hooray for the french-canadian scum!

:rolleyes:
(this was a joke, for all those that intend to lecture me on my insensitive ways)

[ABRAXAAS]

No the french suck there a drain on canada ,but YAY atleast we have a formal stance .:D

[Sputty]

That's always Canada's position. I wasn't sure whether or not the resolution was broken or not but, Canada, the fanboy of the UN agrees with it. Yay, who's up for an army rape?

[Navaron]

"Canada, the fanboy of the UN agrees with it."

/me covers poor dio's ears

[Sputty]

Well, it's true. Dio should know it too. Canada always supports the UN.

[ABRAXAAS]

Why wouldnt Canada support the UN ?

[Sputty]

Exactly, Canada has always backed the UN. From it's creation to now

[ABRAXAAS]

Is that a bad thing ?

[Navaron]

Not if you don't mind following linguini spined, limp wristed, two faced, money hungry hypocrites.

[Airlift]

Not if you don't mind following linguini spined, limp wristed, two faced, money hungry hypocrites.

All Politicians

[ABRAXAAS]

LOL!

[�io]

The prime minister said he will be interested to see what evidence U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell produces next week at the United Nations to prove the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Him and me both! :)

I'm just anxious that this whole war on terror and Iraq dies down. Nuke it or don't but just get it over with it already. :p

[ABRAXAAS]

They should just send In JTF-2 take out saddam ,and be done with it :D they really dont need 50,000+ troops to do what one sniper on a special ops team can do ;)

[Sputty]

Yaeh, but this isn't CS. ;)

[Sputty]

WASHINGTON - After getting a taste of what the White House says is new evidence against Iraq, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham reiterated Canada's position that the United Nations should decide what to do next.


INDEPTH: Iraq


Bill Graham and Colin Powell
(AP PHOTO)
Graham made the comments Thursday, after a brief meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington.

The foreign affairs minister refused to comment directly on the latest American intelligence, which Powell intends to present to the Security Council Feb. 5. The White House insists that Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction and poses a threat to global peace.

"I think what the secretary told me was that he intends to make a persuasive case that Iraq must be compelled to disarm, and Iraq has to understand that if it does not disarm there will be consequences for its failure to disarm," Graham said.

He bristled when some reporters asked him how Ottawa felt about some Americans' perceptions that Canada is "wobbly" about backing its ally in the possible use of force.

Graham said the countries are allies because of their "mutual respect" for one another, including the right to follow the course each thinks is best.

Canada believes there is a danger to global security when any government takes unilateral military action, and Graham stressed that Ottawa is pleased the White House has taken its deep concerns about Iraq to the UN.

"We believe that Iraq has to know from the world community that it must disarm," Graham said. "We all agree that if it fails to disarm the United Nations will have to take its responsibility to make sure that Resolution 1441 is enforced."


FROM JAN. 29, 2003: Chr�tien waffling on Iraq, says opposition
Powell told reporters that he is familiar with Canada's position, and that ideally the UN will side with Washington.

"I think Canada is committed to the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," Powell said, standing next to Graham. "And we all hope that it can be done with the support of the international community."

Powell said he gave Graham a "foretaste" of what the U.S. intends to tell the Security Council next week.

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, a few senators expressed annoyance that some of America's allies appear reluctant to back military action against Iraq � including Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

During testimony before the committee, deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage agreed.

"There are some leaders, as you suggest � who do not want to lead," Armitage said.

In his state of the union address on Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush said the United States is prepared to take military action on its own when the security of Americans is at stake.

On Thursday, Bush met with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, who supports a firm stand against Iraq, and once again warned allies that he does not intend to give Saddam much more time to comply with UN resolutions.

"This is a matter of weeks not months," Bush said.
www.cbc.ca

[Airlift]

I think if we are going to war, a limited operation would not be a good solution. There are lots of reasons, but the main one is the risk is too high. If you send a SEAL team in to put down the tyrant and something goes wrong, we are proper fucked. It is a dangerous enough on a global scale to assassinate the leader of any country, but you really don't want to be the nation that failed to do so. Iraq is that guy. The US doesn't want to be that guy. Even allies get nervous when you start shooting kings.

[ABRAXAAS]

So true !

[Navaron]

Just FYI, they cleared this. The Geneva treaty says you can't wax political leaders, however, Hussein is a self declared leader of the army also. He has an actual rank of General, unlike Bushes CINC. So he's fair game...

[ABRAXAAS]

GAME ON!:sniper:

[Airlift]

I have little doubt that they will kill him at the end of the war and special forces will be used in many capacities throughout. But it is going to be in conjunction with a good old fashioned show of overwhelming force. If the easy option of sending a few specialists was feasible, it would have been done a long time ago, like a few months after the Reagan administration realized that Iraq was a bad ally.