Some Canadian On The War

[Clay Fink]

A letter to the editors of Salon from a Canadian. They're next!

I read Salon regularly but am extremely disappointed by your war coverage.

I find it extremely narcissistic in the care taken with American feelings. The delicacy you extend to yourselves and your society is jarring and frightening to me in light of what your country is perpetrating on the world. There is a "soft," unalarmed and self-regarding quality to your coverage that is especially noticeable after reading, for example, British and French publications, which are braver and more forthright.

I'm thinking particularly of the troops. They are an invading army seeking to conquer and occupy another country. To most people outside the United States, and according to international law, they are clearly the aggressors in an illegal and immoral war.

I know you consider yourselves to be on the left within the American context. But like so many other Americans, you seem to care primarily for yourselves, and to have no real feeling for the implications and consequences of this action. Unfortunately, I do not see a radical difference between the deluded pro-war "ordinary Americans" featured in the media and the editors and writers at Salon.

Perhaps it is hard living in the United States to get some distance on yourselves and understand how you are perceived by others. You are so far away from others that perhaps you cannot feel them. Perhaps the pussyfooting you do is necessary in what seems to me to an environment increasingly intolerant of dissent and self-reflection. Or maybe you can't bring yourselves to confront the full, horrifying implications of what is happening because it will make you lose faith in your country. But these things have never been more urgent.

I wish you well and hope that you consider my perspective. We are all in this mess together.

-- Darya Farha, Toronto

[patricia]

According to our hansard [record of sittings of Parliament], this question has been raised and being debated:

Canadian Armed Forces are officially non-combatants, in the Iraq war.
Although they are in the Gulf, in Iraq and in Afghanistan they are not authorized to detain any Iraqi soldiers who may be trying to flee, as has been asked of them, by the U.S., who are in combat, officially.
Should they be captured or killed, what is their status, with regard to the Geneva Convention provisions??

I'm thinking of the treatment of the "detainees" now at Guantanamo Bay and how that is affecting the attitude of the Middle-Eastern countries toward non-combatants, should they be captured.
________
Bmw z8 history
________
Free vaporizer

[FredC]

When did any of the terrorist groups sign on to the Geneva convention?

While I was not personally in favor of starting this affair,
under our constitution the President is the military C in C of all the military, and he, influenced greatly by his idealogue hard liners Cheney, Wolfewitz (sp?), the Sec Def, etc., made the call, greatly supported by most of Congress of both parties.

Our "friends", the French, by openly stating any compromise in the Security Council would be vetoed, forced Bush's hand which appeared to be their goal.

Bush failed to restrain Israel's loonie toons Sharon, with help from Palestinian loonie toones Arafat, who sees any Israeli-Palestinian peace as bringing the end of his, Arafat's, political clout. Arafat therefore feels this is sufficient motive to sabotage all proposed peace accords.

Taken as a whole, these have already made the US anathema to the Arab/Muslim world. So be it.

If it is jihad they want, then jihad they shall get, since we have no choice in the matter.

My choice would almost have been one of invading France. Those losers couldn't do much to prevent it. Veto wouldn't work

[Clay Fink]

Fred. France didn't need to force out hand. We had already decided to invade long before we went to the UN.

France has it's own motivations. One of which may be to make the US look bad. But again, we really don't need any help doing that.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I've had my problems with the covergae of this war myself. But there is something that's starting to annoy me. There's been comentary that seems to suggest that "rooting for your own team" is a unique American trait. I'm troubled that 70% of Americans support this war, but I kind of understand it. People rally around their own. It's human nature. So I'm not surprised that American coverage of the war is deemed soft.

I mean are we supposed to be like that college professor in NYC who was hoping for another Somalia? You know, dead US troops being drug through the strrets?

I wish there was more balance in the coverage. But there's no way to expect the American media to have the same slant as say Al-Jazzeera (did I spell that right?)