After getting through about 1 /2 of this letter,I decided to put it on here because it is easier to read.

I'm pretty sure the person who wrote this is Canadian.
Whether male or female,I don't know,he/she sure seems like a left winger though.

It seems like a pretty good read though whether one agrees with it or not.


*************************************************

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must contend that the leadership of the Alliance party is choosing a woefully irresponsible stance in berating the Prime Minister for refusing to send Canadian troops on an illegal peace-making mission in Iraq. By not engaging in this exercise without UN support, we are re-affirming our commitment to democracy, security, human rights, and rule of law.

I am reminded of the Somalia experience. My best friend, Private Elvin Kyle Brown, recounts the day of deployment for the troops in Somalia. He recalls that all the Canadian soldiers deploying that day were given blue UN skins and armbands prior to crossing the tarmac for entering their transport Hercules. He was told, at the time by his superiors, that this was a political coverup move by the government of the day, to dupe the Canadian public into believing that the Somalia mission was one with UN support. It was not. The skins were political window-dressing - the worst lie, aimed directly at the Canadian public on both sides of the ideological fence. Once on board the Hercules, and out from view of the media's cameras, all the Canadian Somalia troops were then ordered to remove the skins as this was not a UN mission.

The reason the Tories knew, at that time, that they would have to dupe the public into believing Somalia was a UN mission is because they knew Canadians on both sides of the fence do not support military action without UN approval. At least in the case of landing on foreign soil, that is. Our peacekeepers became tainted with the role of "peacemaker" and it is the illegal and immoral nature of that mission which my friend Kyle attributes as a chief failing in the Somalia mission. I have to agree. I seriously doubt that Shidane Arone would be dead today had the Somalia mission been postponed until it had been granted official UN approval, and my friend Kyle would most likely be a highly decorated officer by now, instead of a wrongly vilified scapegoat.

Iraq is no different. To send troops in to undermine the UN and its weapons inspections simply to enforce democracy building, when we have yet to offer any real mechanism or plan by which democracy will be enacted, is criminal. Even by their own standards when setting up the proposed International Criminal Court, the US is guilty of war crimes and an illegal aggression. We have no plan for things like fair representation, fair campaigning and campaign education, campaign security, nor have we discussed who is to be invited to these democracy building sessions, nor how we have arrived at such choices.

Moreover, we should pause and consider the absolute danger the US has placed us in. By undertaking this incursion, the US has essentially announced to the world that sovereignty is null and void. If the US feels that any nation's level of democracy is substandard, then they will invade and enforce democracy. That is a startling new shift in foreign policy, and has put many fundamentalist nations on alert, and has made them much more comfortable with the idea of launching attacks or waging war directly with the western world. If it came down to a world war on this, the US would be standing virtually alone with a pathetically small British contingent, and an even smaller Australian contingent, likely versus China, Russia, most of the Arab world, France, Korea, Germany, many Slavic nations, Turkey, and quite possibly, Canada.

If the plan is now to roll over one regime after another, setting up democracy after democracy, they should just state that purpose out loud and let the world war begin. If not, then now is the time to get out of Iraq before they kill Saddam Hussein, otherwise, the moral duplicity will spark a global furor that could threaten to toss a blanket over democracy and freedom as we know. After all, if we are at war with the world over terrorism, drugs, and democracy building, what room is there left in which to move? Our rights are being stripped away every day in the name of security (Bill C-36 here and Homeland in the States) without adding to it the increased security problems that a global war on non-democratic nations would bring. We would even have to put so-called benign monarchies on notice.

If, at this time, you argue that action is warranted in this case because of contravention of human rights, I will point out that the United States government has never officially recognized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nor have they drafted one of their own, therefore they are in no position to be the High Priests of Human Rights. They have a constitutional bill of rights for what it means to be an American, yes, but they have not yet made a commitment to what rights are due to any human, therefore, they are in no position to use human suffering as an argument for their occupation of Iraq. Indeed, one could argue that the UN has more legitimate authority to order regime change in the US for its violation of international human rights because of its application of the death penalty than the US does in demanding regime change for nations like Iraq. Especially when one remembers exactly which country (and more importantly, which family) actually put Hussein into power. Let's not forget the US has funded and trained Iran, Iraq, Bin Laden - all to fight each other, all being funded at the same time overtly and secretly. Chretien is wise (for once) not to trust nor support the confused American Military/Industrial complex. In fact, I gotta beg the question: when are the Yankees going to learn the lesson that this playing fast and loose with the foreign policy rules (like the La Penca bombings) and the meddling in affairs of sovereignty are the cause of their own terrorist incidences, as illustrated by McVeigh? September 11, was nowhere near as compelling as Oklahoma in terms of meaning. We just didn't get it at the time, and conveniently September 11 has been trumped in its perverse usage as a tool to enrage Americans into higher defense spending and an unjust war on the wrong guys.

Essentially Canadians are smart enough to see the line in the sand, and it truly takes an idiot to not see that line when it is clearly drawn in ink on a page, signed in good faith, in front of the entire nation, and globe, for all too see, and be held accountable for. That is our nature, that is why we cannot make an illegal action. The Canadian Alliance party would be well advised to respect law, otherwise us law abiding citizens might not respect the Alliance at the polls.

 

*Cough**Cough* *B******T* I think it was written my a female.
And it is also a load of cr*p. Gotta love this whole the big kid on the block is always the bully and always at fault thing

 

Too bad they took your guns away Mil1lion. I guess some people just need to be shut up. I'd hate to think that this person actually knew what Somalia/Mogadishu (sp?) was about. I guess I think we should let them kill themselves.

 

I found this on one the political newsgroups.
The only reason I posted it is because after today's partial liberation in Iraq,I thought it was quite <> arrogant in nature.

Btw, The didn't take away our guns.

Please understand<>
They just made it law that people who own them have to Register them (Long Guns owned by farmer's & ranchers wheteher they worked or not ) so they could collect revenue<

>The program has backfired (pardon the pun) and has cost almost a Billion $ for nothing.