U.S. forces have attacked and are now occupying Iraq. Helping the U.S. in its military occupation would be the opposite of what Mr. King was urging -- he was calling for resistance to a powerful, armed occupier that, in blatant contravention of international law, had invaded several countries and clearly planned to invade more, using the raw materials of each occupied nation to fuel its war machine.
Can any one suggest that Iraq in 2003, essentially defenceless as has now been universally accepted -- under sanctions for ten years, incapable of even feeding its own people, was about to invade the U.S. or Canada to gain control of our resources? Is it not the U.S.A. which is openly seizing Iraq’s oil fields? And, contrary to the pre-war hype, it is the U.S., not Iraq, that possesses, and is using, weapons of mass destruction -- waging a low-intensity nuclear war in Iraq using depleted uranium weaponry, which will leave a legacy of radioactive contamination for generations to come.
In the mid-1990s I had the chance to visit a hospital in central Vietnam for those deformed by U.S. aerial spraying of Agent Orange and other chemical weapons. It is difficult to find words to describe the suffering involved, but Mr. Bush’s policy of using depleted uranium, helicopter gunships and B52 bombers to bring “liberty and democracy” to the Iraq brings back the full memory of their faces.
Mackenzie King’s invocations to resist tyranny would apply to those resisting foreign occupation and invasion, not to those advocating the conquest of small countries by larger ones.
Canada played a proud and unstinting role in defeating Nazi Germany. As the son of one who gave several years of her life to the fight against Hitler’s juggernaut I find offensive the idea that Canadians need to have their resolve “stiffened” in defence of liberty. It also does not square with the historical record. Canada was on the ground in that mighty conflict, which cost over 40 million lives, two years before the U.S. which only joined after it was attacked itself at Pearl Harbour in 1941.
The U.S. invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq are in flagrant violation of international law spelled out by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, the Charter of the United Nations, and numerous international treaties and conventions predating both -- which sanctions the use of force by a country on only two grounds: in self-defence against a direct or ongoing attack, or when authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Neither applies in Iraq. The vast majority of Canadians supported their government under Jean Chrétien in 2003, when it refused to participate in the assault on Iraq, as they did with John Diefenbaker’s refusal to go to Vietnam. Both Canadians and their government stood -- and stand today -- clearly on the side of international law.
International law is not some trifle to be overridden at the whim of any country. It is the very essence of how nations can live together without bloodshed and has been arrived at only through countless wars and untold agony. Without it we are back to the rule of the jungle.
If anything it is our resolve to defend the rule of international law which needs to be stiffened, not our willingness to sanction its breach.
-----------------------
David Orchard is the author of the bestseller, The Fight for Canada - Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism, and ran for the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party in 1998 and 2003. He farms at Borden, SK and can be reached at tel (306) 652-7095, e-mail: davidorchard@sasktel.net http://www.davidorchard.com
Stumble It!
That occasion was not the last time Mr. Bush tried to go
over the heads of the Canadian Government to the
Canadian people.
In his more recent stop in Halifax he - after briefly
thanking Atlantic Canada for its hospitality after 911 -
launched into a promotion of his Star wars project. As I
watched, I wondered how many Canadians would be
convinced by this performance, and how many more
would be offended by this blatant attempt to influence
public opinion, and twist the arms of the Martin
Government.
I wondered if Mr. Bush realizes that there really is a
difference between Canadians and Americans, and
that here his pitch would be interpreted as uncalled for
meddling in our affairs.
Nazi Germany didn't supply the enemy with chemical weapons first to kill their own people. They just took over and did it themselves. They didn't let these countries attack them first to justify a war. They also didn't kill innoncent people saying it was part of war, they simply killed to push their ideologies, and their purpose to take over.
The U.S on the other hand helped the enemy look bad, by supplying them chemical weapons to kill their own people. The U.S made the enemy look bad by also allowing U.S intelligence to have a blind eye to an attack towards the U.S. The U.S made the enemy look bad to be able to gain some support to go to war.
Personally I think the U.S is in a much different position then Nazi Germany. The U.S has set themselves up economically in a way which makes it hard for countries to go against them. Since everything is so tied up to the market, and since so many government and corporations rely on this market. The U.S stands a better chance of having no one stoping them from doing what they are doing, securing a market. The U.S position is similar to Nazi Germany, accept the U.S was much smarter. That's why it is difficult to say what exactly will result from their Nazi like actions.
Kevin
to all the Lies that come from the biased Media on North
American News Channels.
Concerned!