# PM Chretein did all right by us



## cphansen

He kept us out of IRAQ and later developments are showing the WMD hysteria were based upon a lie. Not by the Americans but one person an Iraq chemical engineer.

Take a look at the article at http://www.military.com/news/article/source-of-iraq-wmd-claim-admits-he-lied.html?ESRC=eb.nl

One man, not even an elected representative, was responsible for the loss of 100, 000 lives

I do not agree with some of the things the little guy from Shawigian did, but I am grateful to him for saving many lives and keeping the honour of the Canadian Armed Forces intact


----------



## ModlrMike

SherH2A said:
			
		

> ... keeping the honour of the Canadian Armed Forces intact



Not even close!


----------



## Sythen

SherH2A said:
			
		

> He kept us out of IRAQ and later developments are showing the WMD hysteria were based upon a lie. Not by the Americans but one person an Iraq chemical engineer.
> 
> Take a look at the article at http://www.military.com/news/article/source-of-iraq-wmd-claim-admits-he-lied.html?ESRC=eb.nl
> 
> One man, not even an elected representative, was responsible for the loss of 100, 000 lives
> 
> I do not agree with some of the things the little guy from Shawigian did, but I am grateful to him for saving many lives and keeping the honour of the Canadian Armed Forces intact



So toppling one of the worst regime's in the world, offering a different path to freedom and happiness (regardless of whether the locals chose that path) would definitely tarnish the honour of the Canadian Forces? Regardless of the original reasons for invasion, it was the correct path. 

I would (and have) happily go to war on a "what if" that threatened Canada. No terrorist attacks happened here. So all this time people have been lieing to keep us at war in Afghanistan saying we fight them there so they don't come here, right? Maybe if we all bury our heads in the sand everything will turn out fine.

EDIT: Just editing to add that though I awarded you 300 points, it was meant to be a deduction. My failure to pay attention to detail.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SherH2A said:
			
		

> He kept us out of IRAQ and later developments are showing the WMD hysteria were based upon a lie. Not by the Americans but one person an Iraq chemical engineer.
> 
> Take a look at the article at http://www.military.com/news/article/source-of-iraq-wmd-claim-admits-he-lied.html?ESRC=eb.nl
> 
> One man, not even an elected representative, was responsible for the loss of 100, 000 lives
> 
> I do not agree with some of the things the little guy from Shawigian did, but I am grateful to him for saving many lives and keeping the honour of the Canadian Armed Forces intact



I'm going to suggest that keeping us out of Iraq was less to do with Bush and the war and more to do with the Oil for Food Scandal and Totalfina Petroleum. You will find that Power Corporation and Andre Desmarais (Chretien's son in law) in which Chretien and Martin are both heavily involved, were at the centre of the whole mess.

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/un_oil_money.htm
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001306.html
http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050120Gray.htm
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Power+Corporation+and+Iraq's+oil-for-food+scandal.-a0130564526

There's tons more out there to read also. Just Google Oil for Food Power Corporation.

You can idolize the "Little Thug de Shawinigan" all you want but you won't convince me staying out of Iraq had anything to do with his saving either the lives, or honour, of CF personnel. It was all about greed for him and his corporate bosses.


----------



## fraserdw

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm going to suggest that keeping us out of Iraq was less to do with Bush and the war and more to do with the Oil for Food Scandal and Totalfina Petroleum. You will find that Power Corporation and Andre Desmarais (Chretien's son in law) in which Chretien and Martin are both heavily involved, were at the centre of the whole mess.
> 
> 
> You can idolize the "Little Thug de Shawinigan" all you want but you won't convince me staying out of Iraq had anything to do with his saving either the lives, or honour, of CF personnel. It was all about greed for him and his corporate bosses.



Beat me to it, Jean Creeptan "skills" are the creepest since Sir John A!  How many hours do you have in the military anyway?


----------



## jollyjacktar

I hate him more than Trudeau, I would not piss on him even if he was a dead Taliban.  That's how low he is in my esteem.


----------



## aesop081

SherH2A said:
			
		

> keeping the honour of the Canadian Armed Forces intact



 :rofl:

Oh, wait. You're serious..........


----------



## cphansen

Sythen said:
			
		

> So toppling one of the worst regime's in the world, offering a different path to freedom and happiness (regardless of whether the locals chose that path) would definitely tarnish the honour of the Canadian Forces? Regardless of the original reasons for invasion, it was the correct path.
> 
> I would (and have) happily go to war on a "what if" that threatened Canada. No terrorist attacks happened here. So all this time people have been lieing to keep us at war in Afghanistan saying we fight them there so they don't come here, right? Maybe if we all bury our heads in the sand everything will turn out fine.
> 
> EDIT: Just editing to add that though I awarded you 300 points, it was meant to be a deduction. My failure to pay attention to detail.



Please reread my original post what I daid was it was all based on a lie by one individual. That lie cost 100,000 lives Iraq and US and their allies. 

I am grateful that we managed to keep out of that quagmire. You also forgot all the Canadians murdered on 9-11. The perpetuator was tracked down to Afghanistan and the Taliban, the government at that time, was asked to extradite him but refused saying they supported him. In my view that is an acceptable reason to go to war to prevent more attacks resulting in Canadian deaths.

With the Taliban out of government, there have been no more attacks, but I think there has been a lot of hostilities built up and it will be a long time before Afghanistan is at peace.

And no I do not idolize the little guy from Shawingan, he did a lot of harm to the CAF but he also saved a lot of Canadian lives for whatever reason he kept us out, he kept us out. And then to learn the invasion of Iraq based upon WMD was based on a deliberate lie, he may have had more luck than he deserved


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SherH2A,

I just have to ask. What kind of cheap booze or drugs brought on these crazy, other world fantasies anyway?

And what made you post this out of no where?  ;D

j\k


----------



## cphansen

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Beat me to it, Jean Creeptan "skills" are the creepest since Sir John A!  How many hours do you have in the military anyway?



In the militia from 1963 to 1972


----------



## Sythen

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Please reread my original post



ok



> PM Chretein did all right by us



No, he did us no favours by keeping us out of Iraq.



> but I am grateful to him for saving many lives and keeping the honour of the Canadian Armed Forces intact



He didn't save any lives. As you've already stated, 100 000 lives were lost in Iraq. Fighting evil would not tarnish my honour, or that of my Regiment either. Even if from the start it was widely known that there were no WMD's, and former President Bush's nose grew an inch every time he said it, I would still have gladly fought in Iraq under the Canadian flag. How did MLK say it? Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere?

People like to use the term "World Police" as a pejorative word. I don't see it as a bad thing. I see suffering in the world and those with the power, unwilling to stop it. Sending food, hugs and good intentions for 30 years has not changed anything. What is the definition of insanity again?


----------



## exabedtech

You cannot possibly have 'honour' in the same sentence as that jackass.  Canadian Airborne Regiment.  Enough said.  
I'm with Sythen... Our allies fought and we should have fought with them.  The fact that Bush was full of it wasn't entirely clear until after the fact otherwise no one would have gone in with him.
That clown made us look like idiots on the world stage and I thank god daily that he and his party are long gone.  Lets hope they stay that way.  Do I sound bitter??  Having your prime minister refer to your regiment as a 'disgrace to the country' can have that effect on a guy.  He can rot in hell.


----------



## Maxadia

Yeah, we would have lost soldiers....damm good ones too.

But how many of those lost lives you refer to, would have been saved by our involvement?


----------



## Brad Sallows

>He kept us out of IRAQ

He did not.  France and China and Russia kept us out of Iraq.  Chretien's position was for Canada to participate in an invasion of Iraq if one was sanctioned by the UN.


----------



## Snaketnk

I'm glad we didn't go to Iraq, only because I don't think we would have been able to sustain any involvement there logistically.

That's all I'm saying on the matter.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>developments are showing the WMD hysteria were based upon a lie.

Not exactly so, and not necessarily the most relevant point regardless.  Read here for the "reasons" for war.  Hint: there were several.  (Note: I don't claim the war was "just"; I only emphasize the facts of the congressional authorization.)

I know many, many people have fixated on the weakness of Iraq's nuclear weapons program at the time as somehow disqualifying all of the reasons for going for war, but their tunnel vision and ignorance and desire to airbrush out history does not obscure the truth as much as they would like.


----------



## cupper

Not to mention the slight revisionist history by claiming it all came down to one man who lied.

Let's not overlook the fact that said individual was discredited by several of the European intelligence agencies.

What it comes down to is that the Bush Administration was going to end up in Iraq one way or the other. But then 9/11 happened, and the intel didn't completely square up with justifying a move into Iraq.

[/TANGENTIAL RANT] I'm not claiming that the Bush Administration lied it's way into Iraq, but they did cherry pick the facts.

Hell, I don't even criticize them for going in and throwing out one of the most vile dictators of the 20th Century out of power. My criticism is how they handled the aftermath, dropping the ball on an opportunity to build up a useful ally and base from which to counteract the rise of Iran.

The world would have been a different place if Donald Rumsfeld had not been a micromanaging kingdom builder. [/tangential rant]


----------



## PuckChaser

SherH2A said:
			
		

> In the militia from 1963 to 1972



So you didn't actually serve during the decade of darkness that Chretien put the CF through? As a dependant during that time, I can tell you pay cheque to pay cheque with eating rations at home for meals some days because pay increases were frozen for years was not quite fun. Because of it, I'll never have any respect for Chretien, he destroyed the CF and we're just starting to fix it now.


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you didn't actually serve during the decade of darkness that Chretien put the CF through? As a dependant during that time, I can tell you pay cheque to pay cheque with eating rations at home for meals some days because pay increases were frozen for years was not quite fun. Because of it, I'll never have any respect for Chretien, he continued destroying the CF, as started by his mentor Trudeau, and we're just starting to fix it now.



There PC, fixed that for you...


----------



## Edward Campbell

SherH2A is offering the received wisdom from e.g. the CBC. In my reasonably well informed opinion there was no, zero, zilch _strategic_ calculation in any of Jean Chrétien's military/foreign policy decisions about Afghanistan or Iraq.

The first Afghanistan decision, taken in Sep 01, to deploy one battle group to Kandahar for one rotation only was taken, I am informed by a very reliable source, on the very firm advice of a very small handful of ministers who were reading only the domestic political tea leaves. In Sep 01 most Canadians wanted us to do something, anything to help the USA - troops into Afghanistan was a cheap and easy way to show solidarity. But the feeling of goodwill towards the UUSA wore off quickly and when, most sadly, four Canadians were killed in a "friendly fire" incident the PMO _encouraged_ an absolute orgy of anti-Americanism, because that is always good politics in Canada ~ the CF went along, and a unit's real grief was was used for partisan political purposes.

As Brad Sallows has reminded us, Chrétien hid behind a UNSC resolution rather than say "yea" or "nay" to going to Iraq and, thereby, risk offending the Americans - it was good domestic politics, poor foreign policy and showed Chrétien for the cowardly, devious conniver he was and still is.

But Chrétien gave Canadians what they wanted: a low risk chance to thumb their noses at the USA. That's why we didn't go to Iraq - pure vote buying.

(Parenthetically: I believe the invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder, I thought so at the time or, at least, I could not see a good strategic rationale for the invasion, but, had I been PM I would have gone along with the Americans, even with all my doubts and even in the face of a growing body of distortions and outright lies, in order to preserve the _solidarity_ of the West. It would have been poor policy and even worse politics ... which is one of the 35 million reasons I'm not PM.)


Edit: corrected citation


----------



## dapaterson

[side story]

In the Lawrence Martin ghosted autobiograpghy of Jean Chretien, there's a story that perfectly encapsualtes the man.  In high school he hadn't studied for a test, and so faked a stomach ache to get out of the test.  He was convincing - they decided he must have appendicitis, and so prepared to operate.

Rather than admit to a lie, he went through with the surgery.

A man who lies then risks physical harm to prevent exposure of the lie is not a role model, to me at least...

[/side story]


----------



## fraserdw

Anyone remember how mush he stole from our pension fund to get them welfare out of debt?


----------



## daftandbarmy

He was an appeaser:

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Winston Churchill


----------



## Brad Sallows

>The world would have been a different place if Donald Rumsfeld had not been a micromanaging kingdom builder.

The guy you should blame for mismanagement of the occupation is Paul Bremer, and secondarily the people who supported the decision to put him there.


----------



## Remius

Hmn.  How many lives has he risked by cancelling the EH-101?


----------



## fraserdw

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn.  How many lives has he risked by cancelling the EH-101?



AS I recall soon after canceling the EH101, we lose a crew in a crash in Northern NB.  I would like to see how many died in old helicopters and a poorly run UN mission in FRY.  I wonder who killed more Canadian troops, the Taliban or Liberal decisions?  It would be a close run thing!


----------



## RangerRay

cypres78 said:
			
		

> Chretien was the worst thing to ever happen to the military. Anyone else here remember screaming budget cut budget cut to simulate bullets on exercise?  :facepalm:



We screamed "Bang!" or "Militia round!".


----------



## jollyjacktar

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn.  How many lives has he risked by cancelling the EH-101?


I can think of a Labrador crew that perished on a SAR misson, in an aircraft that would have already been replaced by the Merlin at the time of the rescue.  How's that.  I personally feel he has their blood on his hands as a result of his decision.   :rage:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

fraserdw said:
			
		

> AS I recall soon after canceling the EH101, we lose a crew in a crash in Northern NB.  I would like to see how many died in old helicopters and a poorly run UN mission in FRY.  I wonder who killed more Canadian troops, the Taliban or Liberal decisions?  It would be a close run thing!



You're really getting out there. Let's not start extraploting to extremes please.

The subject has gone enough off the track, let's not run it right into the ditch.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RangerRay said:
			
		

> We screamed "Bang!" or "Militia round!".



I've had to do that at various times since the '60s, including in the Regs. You can't hang that one on a specific government.


----------



## daftandbarmy

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've had to do that at various times since the '60s, including in the Regs. You can't hang that one on a specific government.



Wasn't that spec in the original requirements for the F35?  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Wasn't that spec in the original requirements for the F35?  ;D



Yeah. Like Rae demanding Harper step down over the F35 fiasco that was birthed and weened by the liberals  :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As long as Rae doesn't go: "I will take my pen and write zero F-35".

Where have I heard that one before ???


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...Where have I heard that one before ???



Right after "I'll get rid of da GST, and da free trade..."


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Remember the Yanks weren't asking us to provide much in the way of troops or support. If my memory serves me right all the wanted from Canada was a JTF-2 detachment, a couple squadrons of Coyote recce vehicles, a couple of Hercs and may be a warship or two. Not much considering what we later deployed to Afghanistan.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Remember the Yanks weren't asking us to provide much in the way of troops or support. If my memory serves me right all the wanted from Canada was a JTF-2 detachment, a couple squadrons of Coyote recce vehicles, a couple of Hercs and may be a warship or two. Not much considering what we later deployed to Afghanistan.




Actually, by my reading, the Americans didn't care about us (or e.g. the Australians) and were indifferent to any contribution. They would have liked and been grateful for some moral support but that was the very last thing PM Chrétien was inclined to offer. By 2003 anti-Americanism was nearly rabid in Canada and Chrétien was inclined to fan the flames and exploit it for his own, partisan political purposes.


----------



## fraserdw

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, by my reading, the Americans didn't care about us (or e.g. the Australians) and were indifferent to any contribution. They would have liked and been grateful for some moral support but that was the very last thing PM Chrétien was inclined to offer. By 2003 anti-Americanism was nearly rabid in Canada and Chrétien was inclined to fan the flames and exploit it for his own, partisan political purposes.



Quite correct, the Liberals made a habit of snapping at the ankles of our friends, Anti-Americanism, Anti-royalty, anti-free speech, anti private property.  Once Creeptan came to power I truly understood how Trudeau could fly his FLQ buddies off on a Cuban vacation for their murders, Liberals have nothing but Canadian blood on their hands.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Fraser,

Trudeau had many faults, but being a friend to the FLQ was not one of them.


----------



## cupper

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Once Creeptan came to power I truly understood how Trudeau could fly his FLQ buddies off on a Cuban vacation for their murders, Liberals have nothing but Canadian blood on their hands.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Fraser,
> 
> Trudeau had many faults, but being a friend to the FLQ was not one of them.



Apparently they stopped teaching about the October Crisis and Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act in schools since I was a kid. :facepalm:

It's definitely a Liberal cover-up at the highest levels. :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## PMedMoe

I'm still giggling over the fact that Chretien's name is spelled wrong in the thread title.   ;D


----------



## Pusser

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn.  How many lives has he risked by cancelling the EH-101?



Risk!  Chretien didn't *"risk"* killing anyone.  In my opinion, that bastard actually *did* kill people by cancelling the EH-101, including a man I knew and admired.  As far as I'm concerned, Chretien's hands are soaked in blood and I will never forgive him.

Maj Wally Sweetman RIP.   

PS:  as for WMD in Iraq, just because an inspection team didn't find anything after telling everyone, well in advance, that they were coming and exactly where they were going to look, didn't find anything, doesn't mean they weren't there.  Chemical weapons (Saddam's favourite) are especially easy to hide.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Chemical weapons were found.


----------



## fraserdw

cupper said:
			
		

> Apparently they stopped teaching about the October Crisis and Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act in schools since I was a kid. :facepalm:
> 
> It's definitely a Liberal cover-up at the highest levels. :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Invoking War Measures was one thing, but when the opportunity presented itself in Montreal to cut the head of the FLQ dragon, Trudeau gave them a day pass to sunny Cuba instead.


----------



## cupper

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Invoking War Measures was one thing, but when the opportunity presented itself in Montreal to cut the head of the FLQ dragon, Trudeau gave them a day pass to sunny Cuba instead.



He was a thinker ahead of his time. Just think of him a 60's era George Bush, sending terrorists to an all expenses paid trip to Cuba. ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Let's stick to the subject, shall we?

It's not Trudeau.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Bass ackwards

Pusser said:
			
		

> Risk!  Chretien didn't *"risk"* killing anyone.  In my opinion, that ******* actually *did* kill people by cancelling the EH-101, including a man I knew and admired.  As far as I'm concerned, Chretien's hands are soaked in blood and I will never forgive him.
> 
> Maj Wally Sweetman RIP.



I have, somewhere in my dusty archives, a newspaper clipping of an article by Michael Harris of the Ottawa Sun.
In it, he tells of an incident where Canadian and US warships were on an exercise together. Mr Cretien had been flown out to an American aircraft carrier where he was supposed to have been picked up by a Sea King from a Canadian frigate and flown to that ship for dinner. 
Mr Cretien sent the Sea King back to the ship empty and flew out shortly after on an American Seahawk. 

IIRC, the officer in charge of the Sea King det refused to attend the dinner. 

Perhaps someone here remembers this incident ?

(it also begs the question, how did he get _off_ the frigate? -the article never said)


----------



## fraserdw

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's stick to the subject, shall we?
> 
> It's not Trudeau.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Roger that, sometimes it is hard to separate a Sidious from his Sith Lord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sith


----------



## OldSolduer

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I have, somewhere in my dusty archives, a newspaper clipping of an article by Michael Harris of the Ottawa Sun.
> In it, he tells of an incident where Canadian and US warships were on an exercise together. Mr Cretien had been flown out to an American aircraft carrier where he was supposed to have been picked up by a Sea King from a Canadian frigate and flown to that ship for dinner.
> Mr Cretien sent the Sea King back to the ship empty and flew out shortly after on an American Seahawk.
> 
> IIRC, the officer in charge of the Sea King det refused to attend the dinner.
> 
> Perhaps someone here remembers this incident ?
> 
> (it also begs the question, how did he get _off_ the frigate? -the article never said)



I remember that. Was that in 93 or so?


----------



## Bass ackwards

I think 95-ish.
I'm sure it could be dug up with enough searching but I'm feeling lazy right now.


----------



## exabedtech

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I think 95-ish.
> I'm sure it could be dug up with enough searching but I'm feeling lazy right now.


I've less to do right now, so here it is...

 http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=294444

Not sure how accurate this source is, but it provides enough detail that someone with even more time than I could easily fact-check it.
i'm not Harper's biggest fan by any means, but the guy is a cross between Ghandi and Winston Churchill when compared to that dirtbag Cretin.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I remember back in those days.  We used to laugh as we were told that His Highness was not allowed to fly ala SeaThing as it was not considered safe enough for him, but Mary Clancy was strapped into the back of one and flown around the local area for a publicity affair.  At that time she was not necessarily the darling of the troops here in town and we, (at least my gang of peeps), privately hoped she would fall out the back during the ride.  (We were told of the no fly zone info by members who were on the ASO team of the time).


----------



## lethalLemon

exabedtech said:
			
		

> I've less to do right now, so here it is...
> 
> http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=294444
> 
> Not sure how accurate this source is, but it provides enough detail that someone with even more time than I could easily fact-check it.
> i'm not Harper's biggest fan by any means, but the guy is a cross between Ghandi and Winston Churchill when compared to that dirtbag Cretin.



Took the words right out of my mouth  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Pretty sure we all just got trolled, the OP left the topic after about 3 replies...


----------



## exabedtech

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Pretty sure we all just got trolled, the OP left the topic after about 3 replies...


No doubt... Even his mom wouldn't say that he 'did alright by us'.
Maybe we need a thread like "the LSVW was the most thought out and prudent purchase ever made by DND"


----------



## OldSolduer

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Maybe we need a thread like "the LSVW was the most thought out and prudent purchase ever made by DND"



Well what's stopping us?    >

The Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled. What a tale of woe that is.


----------



## cphansen

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Pretty sure we all just got trolled, the OP left the topic after about 3 replies...



Nope you didn't get trolled. The point I was trying to make was overlooked by everyone else because I  used Chretien to make a point.

My point was very simple, the person whose testimony was used by the White House to claim an issue of WMD justified the invasion of Iraq was a liar, his testimony which Colin Powell used to justify the invasion was a complete lie.

Ther were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, the US invaded Iraq based upon a lie, then they started saying it was a question of deposing a despot.  BS if they wanted to despose a despot, why did they supply him with weapons etc to keep him in power,

Once again my info did not come from the CBC it was from Military.com.

The invasion of Iraq was not a just war, it was based upon one person's lie and a government's willingness to grasp at anything to justify their desire to invade and use Iraq's oil resources to pay for it.

PM Chretien is obviously disliked by the members of this forum because of his cutbacks and policies, however regardless of why he did it, he kept the Canadian Forces from taking part in an injust war. Canadian troops as a body, were not sent to kill and be killed in an unjust war. Let's call the Iraq war what it really was a looting expedition.


----------



## PuckChaser

Iraq war is a dead issue. We didn't have the troops and equipment to put into 2 theatres, thanks to Chretien. However, if Chretien wanted us to go (AKA it got him votes) we'd have been in there in a heartbeat driving the Iltis into Fallujah.


----------



## Jed

I call BS SherH2A. We are being trolled. No one can be this blind to all the direct anecdotal response to the original post.


----------



## fraserdw

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Canadian troops as a body, were not sent to kill and be killed in an unjust war. Let's call the Iraq war what it really was a looting expedition.



No trolling there....... :


----------



## Pusser

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Ther were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, the US invaded Iraq based upon a lie, then they started saying it was a question of deposing a despot.



And what proof do you offer that he was lying?  The fact that a well-announced inspection team that was limited in where it was allowed to look, didn't find anything (big surprise there) proves nothing.  As I said before, chemical WMDs are exceptionally easy to hide, especially when you're allowed to say "don't look in there" or told exactly where the inspectors are going to look.  What is not so easy to hide is solid proof that Saddam Hussein did have them and did use them both against his own people (Kurds) and his enemies (Iran).

In short, Saddam had them in the past and proved that he was willing to use them.  The idea that he might use them again is not unreasonable.


----------



## OldSolduer

:goodpost:

He gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, and IIRC the Iranians in 1988. 

Not a pleasant chap.


----------



## Tristan

Pusser said:
			
		

> And what proof do you offer that he was lying?



Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi now characterizes his past statements as "lies". Admittedly, things get pretty circular pretty quickly when you're relying on a liar to confirm that he was lying.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/man-whose-wmd-lies-led-to-100000-deaths-confesses-all-7606236.html

Edit: Including the link might be helpful.  :facepalm:

(An odd first post, I know - but I just happened to be reading this article and browsing this thread simultaneously. Back to lurking!)


----------



## GK .Dundas

I seem to recall that there had been some planning to deploy what amounted to a  ad-hoc short light armoured brigade heavy on recce assets . Supposedly the planning cell spent a couple of weeks putting it all together . And were told at the last moment  Forget it! We're going some where else.Somewhere else was Afghanistan .


----------



## cphansen

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> He gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, and IIRC the Iranians in 1988.
> 
> Not a pleasant chap.



Oh you're right not a pleasant chap and no one would deny he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians before the first USA Iraq war but after George Bush invaded and limited the invasion of Iraq, which I by the way supported, Hussein got rid of his chemical weapons. When GW invaded Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and don't think the Americans didn't do a great job of searching for them. But they didn't find them, day after day there were reports of WMD found and then a few days later they were found to be something other WMD, ie industrial or agricultural chemicals.


----------



## cphansen

Jed said:
			
		

> I call BS SherH2A. We are being trolled. No one can be this blind to all the direct anecdotal response to the original post.



The direct anecdotal response is not to the fact that the WMD used to justify the invasion but rather to the fact I used Chretien's name. The moment I used Chretien's name the issue became one of him being responsible for the duress of the Canadian Forces during the 90's. People here do not seem to be able to look beyond Chretien's name. It seems to be a Wolverton reaction as when the inhabitants of Dog River in Corner Gas automatically spit when they hear the name of their rival town.

I am very disappointed in this.  I have a lot of respect for the posters here because I thought they could step beyond their comfort boundaries and examine facts dispassionately, but they are just human and are guided by their own passions.


----------



## cphansen

fraserdw said:
			
		

> No trolling there....... :



Sorry if that seems like trolling to you. I unfortunately just got angry at the way everyone ignored the fact that the Iraq invasion was NOT a justified war. I look upon it more as a freebooting expedition when even the US administration said the war would pay for itself when they got control of the Iraq oil fields.


----------



## Pusser

SherH2A said:
			
		

> day after day there were reports of WMD found and then a few days later they were found to be something other WMD, ie industrial or agricultural chemicals.



However, the chemicals used in WMDs often started out as industrial or agricultural chemicals.  The chlorine gas first used in WWI started out as a laundry whitener and in fact, is still used as such.  Sarin, was actually first developed as a pesticide.  In fact, many modern day pesticides and insect repellants are actually low-grade nerve agents.


----------



## aesop081

SherH2A said:
			
		

> The invasion of Iraq was not a just war, it was based upon one person's lie and a government's willingness to grasp at anything to justify their desire to invade and use Iraq's oil resources to pay for it.



Loosen your tinfoil hat...........


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SherH2A said:
			
		

> The direct anecdotal response is not to the fact that the WMD used to justify the invasion but rather to the fact I used Chretien's name. The moment I used Chretien's name the issue became one of him being responsible for the duress of the Canadian Forces during the 90's. People here do not seem to be able to look beyond Chretien's name. It seems to be a Wolverton reaction as when the inhabitants of Dog River in Corner Gas automatically spit when they hear the name of their rival town.
> 
> I am very disappointed in this.  I have a lot of respect for the posters here because I thought they could step beyond their comfort boundaries and examine facts dispassionately, but they are just human and are guided by their own passions.


  Then you obviously didn't read my response.

Chretien didn't keep us out of Iraq due to any sense of honour or anything of the like.

I'm not raising any bitterness over the years of darkness of him treating us as Canada's Boy Scouts.

He kept us out because him and his real employer (Power Corp) were up to their eyeballs in an oil scandal and the business partner they were working with was good old Saddam.

You can't prove there were no WMDs, but the evidence is more that sufficient of his (Power Corp) involvement in the Oil for Food Scandal. 

You can believe what you want. Chretien kept us clear because it would have cost his company plenty. It all boiled down to the buck and bad publicity for his bosses.

I also don't agree the war was unjustified. Saddam and his whole infrastructure had to go.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SherH2A said:
			
		

> I am very disappointed in this.  I have a lot of respect for the posters here because I thought they could step beyond their comfort boundaries and examine facts dispassionately, but they are just human and are guided by their own passions.



OK Commander Data.


----------



## Jed

SherH2A said:
			
		

> --- People here do not seem to be able to look beyond Chretien's name. It seems to be a Wolverton reaction as when the inhabitants of Dog River in Corner Gas automatically spit when they hear the name of their rival town.
> 
> I am very disappointed in this.  I have a lot of respect for the posters here because I thought they could step beyond their comfort boundaries and examine facts dispassionately, but they are just human and are guided by their own passions.



Well did you ever consider that these numerous instances have indelibly imprinted themselves in the minds of many of these posters? I would say if the shoe fits, wear it.

The same reaction will occur if you ever discuss the NEP (National Energy Policy) with anyone who was drastically effected economically by this bit of sage wisdom from the Federal Government.


----------



## jollyjacktar

SherH2A said:
			
		

> The direct anecdotal response is not to the fact that the WMD used to justify the invasion but rather to the fact I used Chretien's name. The moment I used Chretien's name the issue became one of him being responsible for the duress of the Canadian Forces during the 90's. People here do not seem to be able to look beyond Chretien's name. It seems to be a Wolverton reaction as when the inhabitants of Dog River in Corner Gas automatically spit when they hear the name of their rival town.
> 
> I am very disappointed in this.  I have a lot of respect for the posters here because I thought they could step beyond their comfort boundaries and examine facts dispassionately, but they are just human and are guided by their own passions.


Well, SherH2A you did not serve during this POS's reign.  Hell, you barely served under his evil master's.  I would submit that unless you have walked a mile in our moccasins (and you haven't), you're in no position to comment/critize our hatred of him.  And as such, I am disappointed that you cannot accept we don't agree to your assumption we did all right by his decisions.

I won't dog pile you for your stand on Iraq, as you know the old saying "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one".  You just don't share the majority of the poster's opinions here.  I'll just finish with my final comment to my wife during a "heated discussion".  "well, one of us is wrong, and I don't think it's me".


----------



## mariomike

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll just finish with my final comment to my wife during a "heated discussion".  "well, one of us is wrong, and I don't think it's me".



My wife always forgives me when she is wrong.


----------



## exabedtech

Hey!  So how about that Kim Campbell!!!!


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Ther were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

I say again: chemical weapons were found.  WMD includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  Ergo, WMD were found.  Do you comprehend these simple statements?


----------



## cupper

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Ther were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq
> 
> I say again: chemical weapons were found.  WMD includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  Ergo, WMD were found.  Do you comprehend these simple statements?



Umm... much as I HATE to stick up for the trolling tinfoil hats, the was never any conclusive evidence found of any functional WMD program in Iraq post the first Gulf War.

Most of the interviews of captured Iraqis who were confirmed to have been involved in various programs all admitted to fudging data or outright lying to Hussein about what was going on in order to avoid punishment.

As for Curveball, yes he lied. But the US was also informed by European agencies who made first contact with him that the information he provided could not be independently verified, and was deeply suspect. Senior WH officials (read the VP's office) over ruled their own analysts and included this information in the summary.

Having said all of this, I still have to agree with the majority here that the OP is a trolling tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist that essentially knows only enough to be dangerous. Perhaps he should read more of the various tomes that have been written on the subject by well respected and credible journalists, and avoid getting sucked into reading blogs devoted to anti-Bush drivel.


----------



## Journeyman

cupper said:
			
		

> Having said all of this, I still have to agree with the majority here that
> the OP is a trolling tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist that essentially knows only enough to be dangerous.



One just has to appreciate a subtle turn of phrase.   ;D


----------



## lethalLemon

Chemical weapons are very easy to hide and go undetected even if it's under one's nose. Mustard gas had been found to be in use in multiple soil tests. The actual deliverable and weaponized mustard gas was not located but nonetheless, present.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I didn't write that a functional WMD program was found.  I wrote that chemical weapons were found.  There were not supposed to be any, period.

The US didn't fear that Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons against the US.  The US feared that Saddam Hussein would allow (by act or neglect) chemical weapons to fall into the hands of terrorist groups.  While Iraq evidently had no "hard" links to Al Qaeda, Iraq certainly had "hard" links to other terrorists.  "Threat of supplying nukes directly to Al Qaeda" may be the only talking point for some, but it was not the only threat.


----------



## OldSolduer

As has been said before, insecticides are a form of nerve agent and it would not surprise me if Iraq had hidden their assets in plain sight.

IMO, the world is better off without that murdering genocidal psycho. He should have been taken out in 1991......


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chretien could just as easily have told the President:

" We are sorry, but we do not think we can contribute any troops to this undertaking at this time. However, we will stand up in the U.N. and unequivocally state that Canada finds that Sadam is in breach of UN resolutions and any action by the US and its coalition are justified, legitimate and legal under the UN Charter."

With Canada'a weight in the UN, it would have gone a long way towards eliminating all the nonsensical talk (still present) of the US as a rogue state acting like war criminal.

That, IMHO, is the least he could have done for a friend and neighbour.


----------



## Danjanou

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Chretien could just as easily have told the President:
> 
> " We are sorry, but we do not think we can contribute any troops to this undertaking at this time. However, we will stand up in the U.N. and unequivocally state that Canada finds that Sadam is in breach of UN resolutions and any action by the US and its coalition are justified, legitimate and legal under the UN Charter."
> 
> With Canada'a weight in the UN, it would have gone a long way towards eliminating all the nonsensical talk (still present) of the US as a rogue state acting like war criminal.
> 
> That, IMHO, is the least he could have done for a friend and neighbour.



That would have required him having "a pair" and a backbone, two itmes sadly missing from "da li'l guy."  8)


----------



## OldSolduer

Danjanou said:
			
		

> That would have required him having "a pair" and a backbone, two itmes sadly missing from "da li'l guy."  8)


He only had a pair when it came to screwing his own countrymen....Canadians...and  his American neighbours.]

Say...what ever happened to that loudmouth MP that hated GW Bush so much she stomped on a doll on the steps of Parliament?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Careful, now, by late 2002, events, especially the "friendly fire" incident that cost four Canadian lives, had occurred that led Canadians to revert to their normal level of pretty intense, albeit ill-informed and childish anti-Americanism. Chrétien had both fanned the flames and exploited it for his own, partisan, political advantage but, in being obtuse and in denying the Americans any level of support, he was just doing what his constituents wanted and that is something that many _conservatives_ want their elected representatives to do (as opposed to thinking for themselves).


----------



## Danjanou

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> He only had a pair when it came to screwing his own countrymen....Canadians...and  his American neighbours.]
> 
> Say...what ever happened to that loudmouth MP that hated GW Bush so much she stomped on a doll on the steps of Parliament?




Carolyn Parrish, she went into Municipal politics in the 905 belt tried to launch a coup against her very popular mayor, lost and has since faded into obscurity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Parrish


----------



## OldSolduer

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Carolyn Parrish, she went into Municipal politics in the 905 belt tried to launch a coup against her very popular mayor, lost and has since faded into obscurity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Parrish



Good. She was an embarassment to the nation.


----------



## TN2IC

That name should never be posted on this forum. Period.



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> Hey!  So how about that Kim Campbell!!!!


----------



## paffomaybe

Back in journalism school, I got into a conversation with someone who claimed to be well connected with the smoky backrooms.  He said (taken with a grain of salt; journalists say a lot of things) that the only reason Chretien made the call not to go into Iraq was that his daughter told him not to.  Reason:  she’s married into the Desmarais / Power corp clan, and the clan had interests there that would be disturbed by military action.  True or not, RUMINT or not, this is entirely consistent with my perception of Chretien’s style of governance – small-minded, limited vision, clannish and thuggish to a fault.  The Little Guy was, indeed, in many, many ways.

Still – and this does bug me – as much as I disliked the man, no one can deny that he presided over the most prosperous period in this country’s history (notwithstanding the CF Decade of Darkness).  Ditto for Clinton.  I truly miss the days when we had an extra $1 billion to add as a contingency cushion / applied against the debt.  I don’t think it was just luck.  Then what was it?  I’ve been struggling with the notion that good governance is NOT a result of having principles and being ideological one way or the other; that in this country, a certain degree of corruption is necessary to grease the wheels for general prosperity.  Being ideological throws everything out of whack, and we all suffer.  Disputes to this theory are welcome.


----------



## asianhistorian

There was really indeed WMD or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Everybody saw the video of Saddam's army spraying chemical gas on the Kurds while they were dying one by one. Assuming it was a lie, why can't George Tenet, who "lie for a living" becausee he was a spy, lie for a head of state. And if he did, it was a white lie because everybody saw the Kurds dying one by one because of chemical warfare! Don't tell me MI Intelligence does not lie to communists when they represent themselves to be 'communists' to my friend Miguel?

Can somebody tell me what is wrooooong with this post. I got an email from Scott telling me last chance. Just because I went against the flow of argumentation, don't telll me I am going to be penalized for a plausible argument on Iraq?  I think this forum is riddled with Cuban annd Chinese moles who buy their way into power as moderators by paying hefty prices for subscription. Freedom of speech and press,Scott!!!


----------



## asianhistorian

Scott, I pray for your soul because if the whole US army and CIA and CSIS andn CSE and NSA is wiith me, who can be against me. You are either a skinhead Cuban spy, a skinhead racist Russian spy or a Chinese spy. I pray for youru soul


----------



## asianhistorian

Domingo R. Rodriguez, Director of Operations, Communications Security Establishment. Bet 1 millionn, it is true annd I did not violate any laws in here.


----------



## Journeyman

Outstanding   :stars: 


:rofl:   I _had_ to give him MilPoints.  Too funny.


----------



## fraserdw

That was most curious!


----------



## OldSolduer

asianhistorian said:
			
		

> Scott, I pray for your soul because if the whole US army and CIA and CSIS andn CSE and NSA is wiith me, who can be against me. You are either a skinhead Cuban spy, a skinhead racist Russian spy or a Chinese spy. I pray for youru soul



   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

:rofl:

Chinese spy is my choice.


----------



## fraserdw

Wouldn't skinheads and communists be morally opposed?


----------



## Journeyman

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Wouldn't skinheads and communists be morally opposed?


 A fine time to try and throw logic into this trainwreck. 

What are you, _another_ Cuban mole?  rly:


----------



## Danjanou

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> Chinese spy is my choice.



I agree the food is better than Cuban which is rather bland to be honest. 8)


----------



## Loachman

sprl said:
			
		

> Still – and this does bug me – as much as I disliked the man, no one can deny that he presided over the most prosperous period in this country’s history (notwithstanding the CF Decade of Darkness).  Ditto for Clinton.  I truly miss the days when we had an extra $1 billion to add as a contingency cushion / applied against the debt.  I don’t think it was just luck.  Then what was it?



Perhaps they were both benefitting on the groundwork laid by their Conservative/Republican predecessors.

Chretien helped himself by slashing transfer payments to the provinces and stealing from my pension fund as well.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Loachman said:
			
		

> Chretien helped himself by slashing transfer payments to the provinces and stealing from my pension fund as well.



A fact conveniently ignored by the Liberal supporters. But when Mike Harris slashed money to the municipalities he was Satan personified.  The main reason I can't ever see myself voting for the Liberals.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>I don’t think it was just luck.  Then what was it?

NAFTA, GST, low CAD:USD ratio, dot.com boom.


----------



## cupper

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I don’t think it was just luck.  Then what was it?
> 
> NAFTA, GST, low CAD:USD ratio, dot.com boom.



Luck. 

He inherited the benefits of NAFTA and GST, and the associated economic and revenue boosts they provided. The lower CAD vs USD helped amplify the NAFTA benefits.


----------



## greentoblue

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Sorry if that seems like trolling to you. I unfortunately just got angry at the way everyone ignored the fact that the Iraq invasion was NOT a justified war. I look upon it more as a freebooting expedition when even the US administration said the war would pay for itself when they got control of the Iraq oil fields.



The idea that former PM Chretien acted out of principle in keeping Canada out of the Iraq War is false both in theory and in fact.

Chretien was a consummate politician that willing sent Canadians into battle when it was convenient for him to win favour with the general
public. In Kosovo in 1999 he sent the air force to participate in the bombing of Serbia. A bombing campaign that was not endorsed by the
United Nations - blowing the claim that Chretien didn't join in the Iraq invasion because the UN didn't explicitedly endorse it. (If GW Bush is
ever indicted with waging a war without UN authorization we'll have to throw Clinton, Chretien and Blair, among others, in the dock as well.)
Later he authorized the deployment of troops on the ground into Kosovo making Canada a party to the invasion and occupation (of parts) of a
sovereign country without UN authorization.

Again in fall 2001, when the public was demanding shared action with the Americans against Al-Qaeda, Chretien authorized the deployment of units
and ships into the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.

When the public mood changed, most especially in Quebec but not limited to it, Chretien changed with it. Rather than tell the Americans and
British a flatout "no" he volunteered the Army to take the lead on being the Kabul force from 2003 to 2005. _"Love to help you guys out but we're
too busy holding the fort in the other theatre." _ (I'm paraphrasing here.)  An action for which we were not equipped or prepared or advocated for. Case-in-point: sending the troops in green uniforms, riding Iltis jeeps. 

As for facts on the ground, if Chretien was so resistant to Canadian participation in the Iraq invasion or to spare the lives of Canadian
soldiers, then why did he authorize Canadian exchange personnel serving with US or British forces to go war with their host units? He could
have very easily ordered them pulled out as was done during the Vietnam War and the Falklands War.  Case in point: then-Captain Ray Romses was
forced to give up command of his platoon in the 3nd Bn, Parachute Regiment when that unit was mobilized.  Even after the initial invasion,
Chretien still authorized Canadian participation in the Iraq War.  Specific examples: both Generals Natynczyk, the CDS; and Devlin, the
Commander of the Army, served in Iraq.  The number of Canadian troops who served in Iraq may be limited but they were there, wearing Canadian
uniforms with our flag on the left shoulder.

You say you're disappointed that we don't share your view but its also clear that faced with our points-of-view, you are equally, if not more, resistant to shifting and changing yours.  As for the invasion being a "looting" and "freebooting"  operation, please tell me where that occurred?  The statement that you reference by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz was that the country of Iraq (not the US) could finance its own reconstruction (the second point that he was famously wrong for; the other was that Army Chief of Staff Shinseki was wrong on the number of troops required for the occupation).  And the US ended up spending billions there anyway which is the complete opposite of a looting operation.

Let's be clear here:  you can be as proud and supportive of Chretien all you want; its your right.  But many of us were around with the first-hand knowledge and experience of the two-faced actions of Chretien to ever swallow that line.


----------



## cupper

greentoblue said:
			
		

> the other was that Army Chief of Staff Shinseki was wrong on the number of troops required for the occupation



Just to clarify, you are saying Shinseki was right in his statement to Congress, and that both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were wrong in dismissing it?


----------



## greentoblue

cupper said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, you are saying Shinseki was right in his statement to Congress, and that both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were wrong in dismissing it?



Yes that is exactly what I am saying.  Shinseki testified that "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."  He based his estimate on his experience as the commander in Bosnia which correctly anticipated many of the problems and tasks that would confront US and other allied forces in the Iraq War.  As he discussed with his staff prior to his testimony, "Well, let's assume the world is linear. If we required a certain amount of troops per 25,000 population in the Balkans, if the world is not radically different, something of the same extent is going to be needed in Iraq."

Three years later, the then Centcom Commander Gen Abizaid testified before Congress that General Shinseki had been correct.  A year later, many observers pointed out that the Petraeus-led surge of forces that stabilized Iraq (2007-8) mirrored the numbers Shinseki had estimated would be required in the first place.


----------



## Scott

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I agree the food is better than Cuban which is rather bland to be honest. 8)



He must have intercepted the comms that gave my orders to return to the motherland next Friday.

I'm starting to think we were visited by Mr Lazlo again...I was his target the last time he made an appearance.

By the way, you're all being watched. Capitalist pig dogs.


----------



## OldSolduer

Scott said:
			
		

> By the way, you're all being watched. Capitalist pig dogs.



That's capitalist running dogs...... you fail modern Communist catch phrases in Young Pioneers comrade?  :facepalm:


----------



## Scott

I was referencing a movie I heard the line in.

That's how deep my Red funded education goes.


----------



## Danjanou

Scott said:
			
		

> I was referencing a movie I heard the line in.
> 
> That's how deep my Red funded education goes.



this one


----------



## OldSolduer

Scott said:
			
		

> I was referencing a movie I heard the line in.
> 
> That's how deep my Red funded education goes.



Well no wonder! 

That movie, although entertaining, was a bit short in a lot of areas.

Like good dialog.


----------



## Remius

Yeah and the Cubans' awesome invasion from the south was so underplayed...


----------



## Danjanou

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yeah and the Cubans' awesome invasion from the south was so underplayed...



Yup as far as fictional Cold War Latin Invasions go this






Can never match this






Ok has this thread spiralled out of control down the drain yet or should we let it go on to die a natural death.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Well no wonder!
> 
> That movie, although entertaining, was a bit short in a lot of areas.
> 
> *Like good dialog.*


Kinda liked this exchange myself....




Response from a young C.Thomas Howell:  "It keeps me warm"


----------



## Redeye

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I didn't write that a functional WMD program was found.  I wrote that chemical weapons were found.  There were not supposed to be any, period.



You mean crates of ancient mortar bombs that were found in the Al Faw marshes that dated from the Iraq-Iran War, when everyone knew they had and used chemical weapons, and they got the precursors for them from the west with tacit approval?!

That's not exactly a justification.

Iraq was well contained in 2003. Invading was an absolute disaster. It set the country back decades, turned it into a violent cesspool of ethnic violence, and in the end strengthened Iran, who are probably much more of a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein ever was. It also probably made things in Afghanistan a lot worse because the focus that needed to be there was taken away when attention prematurely shifted to Iraq.

I'm sure a lot of Iraqis aren't sad Saddam's gone, and rightfully so. But the price they paid to get rid of him was severe, as was the price paid by the United States. A good chunk of Americans realize that now too. It was a waste. A complete waste. I'm glad that for whatever reason you might ascribe, we didn't get involved in that quagmire. George HW Bush (Bush 41) was smart enough to realize that going "all the way" was a dumb idea (based on advice from his military commanders), for the reasons that became true. And when people like Gen Shinseki told Washington the real story and highlighted that they had totally failed to plan for what came after "mission accomplished", they were ignored.

I work with a whole lot of Americans "over here", and I was impressed to find that most of them will tell you that the Iraq War was a mistake - even the Republicans. They accomplished and learned a lot there, sure, but it was still totally, utterly unnecessary.


----------



## jollyjacktar

While I agree that Saddam was a dick who needed removal, I believe the invasion was poorly timed and should have/could have been left to a later date.  Splitting the Yanks attention away from what had been accomplished in Afghanistan took the boot off the neck of the Taliban to some extent.  If the full attention of the west could have been brought to bear decisively there first to crush them completely we would not have, hopefully, the quagmire it has become today.  Then the Yanks could have whaled on Saddam with both fists if they so desired and maybe there would have been a better outcome there as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Redeye said:
			
		

> You mean crates of ancient mortar bombs that were found in the Al Faw marshes that dated from the Iraq-Iran War, when everyone knew they had and used chemical weapons, and they got the precursors for them from the west with tacit approval?!
> 
> That's not exactly a justification.
> 
> Iraq was well contained in 2003. Invading was an absolute disaster. It set the country back decades, turned it into a violent cesspool of ethnic violence, and in the end strengthened Iran, who are probably much more of a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein ever was. It also probably made things in Afghanistan a lot worse because the focus that needed to be there was taken away when attention prematurely shifted to Iraq.
> 
> I'm sure a lot of Iraqis aren't sad Saddam's gone, and rightfully so. But the price they paid to get rid of him was severe, as was the price paid by the United States. A good chunk of Americans realize that now too. It was a waste. A complete waste. I'm glad that for whatever reason you might ascribe, we didn't get involved in that quagmire. George HW Bush (Bush 41) was smart enough to realize that going "all the way" was a dumb idea (based on advice from his military commanders), for the reasons that became true. And when people like Gen Shinseki told Washington the real story and highlighted that they had totally failed to plan for what came after "mission accomplished", they were ignored.
> 
> I work with a whole lot of Americans "over here", and I was impressed to find that most of them will tell you that the Iraq War was a mistake - even the Republicans. They accomplished and learned a lot there, sure, but it was still totally, utterly unnecessary.



Good post.


----------



## cupper

Redeye said:
			
		

> Invading *The handling of the post invasion period* was an absolute disaster.



TFTFY


----------



## Good2Golf

[slight tangent warning]

How Paul Bremer was ever allowed to reneg on the deals/understandings brokered earlier with the moderate Ba'athists (who had previously been told they could participate in the new Iraqi government) and moderate Iraqi Army leadership (dealing with seld-disbandment was one thing, but isolating many of the working leadership from the new Army was another), is beyond me.  Those  actions created hundreds of thousands of insurgents almost overnight.  The rest is, as they say, history.
[/slight tangent warning]

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor

Another slight historical tangent:

General Sherman told his superiors that up to 200,000 men might be needed in the Army of the West to subdue and hold the western theater of operations, but was actually called insane and temporarily relieved of duty. You can use your Google-fu to discover the actual numbers deployed by the Army of the West after Sherman returned to duty, he was fairly close to the mark.

The problem is the professional opinion of the military officers is only one factor in play. Historical evidence, intelligence delivered to the decision makers and domestic and foreign politics all play a part. WRT Iraq, both the President and the Senate had access to intelligence reports which were pretty unequivocal about Iraqu's having a WMD program, and this intelligence had been consistent for a long time (Bill Clinton, hardly a neocon war hawk, warned of to ongoing danger of Iraq's WMD program in 1998). Iraq had used chemical weapons extensively during the Persian Gulf War, as well as against domestic targets (Kurdish villages), so there was historical precedent, and many nations, ranging from Russia to France, were busy undermining the sanctions. Given these factors (as well as continuing belligerent Iraqi actions that violated the cease fire agreement), the President decided to act, and assembled a powerful coalition of domestic politicians and foreign allies to both make the case and do the deed. The fact many of the Democrat senators who supported the war cut and ran after it became a domestic liability speaks more of their motivations being driven by electibility than anything else.

Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeldt decided to go with the lower troop figure in the (correct) belief the war could be won quickly with a minimum application of power, evidently no one in Defense or State seems to have worked out what post war Iraq should look like (although they may have believed there was more time to work things out). If I remember correctly, OIF was scheduled to take six weeks of operations, but was concluded in only three.

Back to Canada and Prime Minister Chretien, his response to the whole Iraq thing was entirely driven by domestic politics, and of the most sophomoric anti-American kind. Pandering to that kind of base may have provided short term benefits domestically, but I think it left some long lasting marks on our international presence, and no doubt contributed to lots of our difficulties with Canada-US trade issues like softwood lumber and so on. Maybe not an epic fail, but hardly a win either.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Nearly all of the chemical weapons found in Iraq were artillery-delivered leftovers from prior conflicts.  Undoubtedly most of the rounds were non-functional for their designed means of delivery, but I doubt anyone expects terrorists to acquire and use gun and mortar tubes when they've already mastered techniques for detonating munitions.  As long as the chemical components were not harmlessly inert, the age and condition of the other components of the rounds is irrelevant.

And of course, knowledge acquired after-the-fact is neither a justification nor a rebuke: the case for war stands as it did at the time, based on the knowledge and beliefs of the time.  And I don't know of any wars that have been initiated that meet the conditions of "just" war, so that particular charge is always a nullity.

It is true that Iraq was contained in 2003; it is also true that the sanctions and other control measures were on the verge of dissolving.  That was the political reality.

Prior to the initiation of the war I did not believe it was necessary (for the US) and I have not changed my mind.  However, I'm not a fan of the revisionism that tries to pretend the community of nations believed Hussein's Iraq was harmless and that the control measures which "contained" Iraq were going to continue.

I don't believe the removal of Hussein had much to do with 9/11; the terrorist attacks were just a convenient introduction.  The removal of Hussein made strategic sense to increase the security of Israel and various regional oil producers.  While I don't think that justifies a war, it might do so for political realists.


----------



## cupper

Brad, you and I are pretty much along the same lines when it comes to this discussion.

During the whole run up to the invasion I knew that the WMD line was questionable at best. Up to 2003, there was no definitive evidence that Iraq was continuing to pursue any WMD program, however Hussein made it out to be the case. This would be a reasonable expectation for two reasons. 

1) He did not want to appear to be in a weak position to his Iranian neighbors,

2) He may truly believed that he still had a significant WMD capability due to subordinates not wanting to tell he that there was nothing left, and all development programs were dead or complete failures.

From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.

So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.


----------



## Sythen

cupper said:
			
		

> From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.
> 
> So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.



 : :facepalm:

CBC opinion pieces I take it?


----------



## PuckChaser

Sythen said:
			
		

> : :facepalm:
> 
> CBC opinion pieces I take it?



Or towing the line from the CBC comments section...


----------



## cupper

Sythen said:
			
		

> : :facepalm:
> 
> CBC opinion pieces I take it?



 :facepalm: Sorry, thanks for playing. I resent your implication.

None of the information I refer to comes from any Canadian news source. I'm referring to several books written by respected authors and journalists.

Tom Ricks "Fiasco" & "The Gamble", Woodwards series on the Bush Presidency, Cobra II by Michael Gordon, No True Glory by Francis West, Paul Bremer's "My Year in Iraq", "Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War" by Rasor & Bauman, "The Man who Pushed America to War" by Aram Roston, "In the Comapny of Soldiers" by Rick Atkinson, "Chain of Command" by Seymour Hersh, "American Soldier" by Tommy Franks and several others that I cannot recall specifically.

Add to that the many articles printed in the Washington Post and other local DC papers during that period of time, several excellent PBS Frontline investigative reports, various on-line news sources, and many on-line national security and foreign policy websites.


----------



## Sythen

cupper said:
			
		

> :facepalm: Sorry, thanks for playing. I resent your implication.
> 
> None of the information I refer to comes from any Canadian news source. I'm referring to several books written by respected authors and journalists.
> 
> Tom Ricks "Fiasco" & "The Gamble", Woodwards series on the Bush Presidency, Cobra II by Michael Gordon, No True Glory by Francis West, Paul Bremer's "My Year in Iraq", "Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War" by Rasor & Bauman, "The Man who Pushed America to War" by Aram Roston, "In the Comapny of Soldiers" by Rick Atkinson, "Chain of Command" by Seymour Hersh, "American Soldier" by Tommy Franks and several others that I cannot recall specifically.
> 
> Add to that the many articles printed in the Washington Post and other local DC papers during that period of time, several excellent PBS Frontline investigative reports, various on-line news sources, and many on-line national security and foreign policy websites.



Might wanna try adding Steven Staples and others of his sort to your illustrious list of authors  :


----------



## cupper

Sythen said:
			
		

> Might wanna try adding Steven Staples and others of his sort to your illustrious list of authors  :



I prefer authors that actually intend to write fiction or humour, and opposed to those who achieve it inadvertently.


----------



## Redeye

cupper said:
			
		

> Brad, you and I are pretty much along the same lines when it comes to this discussion.
> 
> During the whole run up to the invasion I knew that the WMD line was questionable at best. Up to 2003, there was no definitive evidence that Iraq was continuing to pursue any WMD program, however Hussein made it out to be the case. This would be a reasonable expectation for two reasons.



By late 2002, as I recall, Hussein was loudly screaming that indeed they had nothing. Before that, for a while, he made a point of obfuscating, probably for exactly the reason that you state - to maintain an air of power. A lot of that bluster is for domestic consumption, too. I'd submit for consideration that most of Iran's blustering about destroying Israel and so on is purely for internal audiences. Dictators and strong men need a "bad guy" to maintain legitimacy. To put it in another context, the reason that Fidel Castro remained in power for so long in Cuba is that he had the USA to point to, to say "look what I'm protecting you from" or "look what I stand against". The Cuban embargo has in fact probably been the best thing to ever happen to Fidel, it kept him in power as long as it did, whereas trade probably would have forced a liberalization of Cuba long ago. In the case of Iraq, the idea of Hussein standing up to the rest of the world probably increased his legitimacy in the eyes of the Sunni ruling minority, and the Iran wasn't willing to intervene to support the Shia majority either, nor were the Shia willing to do much on their own because the Americans didn't back them in 1991.

I don't think the invasion was inevitable, or in any way necessary, and that was even apparently to me back in 2003. The ridiculous effort to try to connect Iraq to 9/11 (which made very little sense) was required because even a lot of the American public was skeptical of the casus belli. 



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.
> 
> So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.



Inevitable in the sense that it was planned even before 9/11 while people just waited for the right excuse. Numerous sources support that - I'd add a couple of books to that list I read if I could remember the damned titles. They're on my shelf at home.

We did the right thing by staying out of it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien does a little self congratulatory back patting as he opens a "museum" dedicated to ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jean Chrétien


Video reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## ModlrMike

Redeye said:
			
		

> We did the right thing by staying out of it.



Yes, we did. However it wasn't because of any prescience from Mr Chretien.


----------



## Redeye

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, we did. However it wasn't because of any prescience from Mr Chretien.



I'm not sold that if someone else had been office (like perhaps the then-Leader of the Opposition) it might have been different. I don't give him all the credit - but there's some due. As leader of the government he winds up with both blame for mistakes and some credit for good decisions.


----------



## PuckChaser

Redeye said:
			
		

> As leader of the government he winds up with both blame for mistakes and some credit for good decisions.



But the Conservatives only get credit for the mistakes, if they make a good decision it was because the Liberals did something in the past to set it up.  :


----------



## Redeye

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But the Conservatives only get credit for the mistakes, if they make a good decision it was because the Liberals did something in the past to set it up.  :



:eyeroll: :facepalm:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

cupper said:
			
		

> Brad, you and I are pretty much along the same lines when it comes to this discussion.
> 
> During the whole run up to the invasion I knew that the WMD line was questionable at best. Up to 2003, there was no definitive evidence that Iraq was continuing to pursue any WMD program, however Hussein made it out to be the case. This would be a reasonable expectation for two reasons.
> 
> 1) He did not want to appear to be in a weak position to his Iranian neighbors,
> 
> 2) He may truly believed that he still had a significant WMD capability due to subordinates not wanting to tell he that there was nothing left, and all development programs were dead or complete failures.
> 
> From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.
> 
> So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.



An excerpt from the Iraq Survey Group's report on Iraqi WMD program:



> *Looking Ahead to Resume WMD Programs*
> 
> *The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions. *Outward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities. Several senior officials also either inferred or heard Saddam say that he reserved the right to resume WMD research after sanctions.
> 
> * Presidential secretary ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud, while a detainee, wrote: “If the sanctions would have been lifted and there is no UN monitoring, then it was possible for Saddam to continue his WMD activities and in my estimation it would have been done in a total secrecy and [with] concealment because he gained from 1991 and UN decisions.” But in another debrief, Huwaysh said it would take 6 months to reconstitute a mustard program.
> 
> * Saddam had said that after sanctions Iraq would resume production of WMD to “achieve international balance and protect the dignity of Iraq and Iraqis and the Arab nations,” according to former presidential secretary ‘Abd. ‘Abd wrote while a detainee, “He [Saddam] would say if only Iraq possessed the nuclear weapon then no one would commit acts of aggression on it or any other Arab country, and the Palestinian issue would be solved peacefully because of Iraq.”
> 
> * Saddam would have restarted WMD programs, beginning with the nuclear program, after sanctions, according to Tariq ‘Aziz. Saddam never formally stated this intention, according to ‘Aziz, but he did not believe other countries in the region should be able to have WMD when Iraq could not. ‘Aziz assessed that Iraq could have a WMD capability within two years of the end of sanctions.
> 
> * Saddam’s intent to maintain and compartment WMD capabilities was well known and often acknowledged by high level authorities, according to a senior Al Kindi State Company official. The Minister of Military Industrialization allegedly told the source that Saddam wanted a WMD program “on the shelf.” Huwaysh, in a written statement, explained instead that Saddam briefed senior officials on several occasions saying, “We do not intend or aspire to return to our previous programs to produce WMD, if the Security Council abides by its obligations pertaining to these resolutions [UNSCR 687, paragraph 14].” Saddam reiterated this point in a cabinet meeting in 2002, according to Dr. Humam ‘Abd-al-Khaliq ‘Abd-al Ghafur, the former Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research.
> 
> * Huwaysh believed that Saddam would base his decision regarding future Iraqi WMD development on how the Security Council followed through on its promise in paragraph 14 to establish “in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery.” If this promise was not fulfilled, Iraq should be free to act in its own interests. During an earlier debrief Huwaysh speculated that Iraq would have reconstituted many of its proscribed programs within five years if OIF had not occurred.
> 
> * During a custodial interview, Saddam, when asked whether he would reconstitute WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, implied that Iraq would have done what was necessary.





> *Preserving and Restoring WMD Infrastructure and Expertise
> *
> *There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial, body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. *In addition to preserved capability, _we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted_. The infrequent and uninformed questions ascribed to him by former senior Iraqis may betray a lack of deep background knowledge and suggest that he had not been following the efforts closely. Alternatively, Saddam may not have fully trusted those with whom he was discussing these programs. Both factors were probably at play. All sources, however, suggest that Saddam encouraged compartmentalization and would have discussed something as sensitive as WMD with as few people as possible.


 My Emphasis.

 Link here. 

Saddam may not have had WMD prior to OIF, however, the statements above indicate that it was his intention to resume development after the fall of UN sanctions.


----------



## Scott

Redeye, you're only reaping what you have sowed. Keep hitting yourself.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm not sold that if someone else had been office (like perhaps the then-Leader of the Opposition) it might have been different. I don't give him all the credit - but there's some due. As leader of the government he winds up with both blame for mistakes and some credit for good decisions.



I think this man sums up your argument when he said, "Hearsay and conjecture are FORMS of evidence"

On the same note- We could also assume that had Mr Harper been prime minister that the Canadian Forces would still not have had the capacity to force generate more than a couple of ships (which were in the gulf anyway), some CF-18s (though they couldn't do CAS at that time and there was no real air-air threat), and maybe a few odds and sod units to fly the flag.  I remember reading an article (can't find the link, but can post later) about how every Canadian diplomat in Washington at the time bragged about how Canada actually had the third most forces in Iraq during the invasion.  The overall jist was that Chretien wanted Canadians to think we weren't in Iraq and Americans to think we were.


----------



## Redeye

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think this man sums up your argument when he said, "Hearsay and conjecture are FORMS of evidence"
> 
> On the same note- We could also assume that had Mr Harper been prime minister that the Canadian Forces would still not have had the capacity to force generate more than a couple of ships (which were in the gulf anyway), some CF-18s (though they couldn't do CAS at that time and there was no real air-air threat), and maybe a few odds and sod units to fly the flag.  I remember reading an article (can't find the link, but can post later) about how every Canadian diplomat in Washington at the time bragged about how Canada actually had the third most forces in Iraq during the invasion.  The overall jist was that Chretien wanted Canadians to think we weren't in Iraq and Americans to think we were.



That's what I meant - even if Mr Harper had been PM he probably wouldn't have been able to do much different - he may well have wanted to (as he did support the invasion at the time) but the issue of resources would have prevented that - unless, of course, forces were drawn drown from Afghanistan, but there would still only have been a token contribution.

Ref the diplomats, I remember that story too. I also remember the Canadian Embassy in DC sponsoring a big ad campaign to inform Americans about what great allies we were at the time, even without directly being involved in Iraq.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But the Conservatives only get credit for the mistakes, if they make a good decision it was because the Liberals did something in the past to set it up.  :


Ain't that the sorry truth in today's Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows

*shrug* Military forces are somewhat fungible.  A foreign contribution in one place frees up an American contribution to go somewhere else.


----------



## cupper

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> An excerpt from the Iraq Survey Group's report on Iraqi WMD program:
> My Emphasis.
> 
> Link here.
> 
> Saddam may not have had WMD prior to OIF, however, the statements above indicate that it was his intention to resume development after the fall of UN sanctions.



Sure he had the intent. I never said he didn't.

But you need both intent and an act in order to get a conviction.

All the information you posted proves is that the policy of containment had achieved it's purpose.


----------



## OldSolduer

Excuse me here, but was not Kofi Annan's son somehow involved as well, with the oil for food scandal? 

The hopes of the UN EVER achieving anything but stern finger wagging mild rebukes have tow chances - slim and none and slim just rode off.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

cupper said:
			
		

> Sure he had the intent. I never said he didn't.
> 
> But you need both intent and an act in order to get a conviction.



Actually, not true. If I'm peeved off at someone and I tell them I'm going to go home and get a gun and come back and kill them, I'm likely to get arrested, especially if I've had a history in the past of going home, getting a gun and killing someone.


----------



## Redeye

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, not true. If I'm peeved off at someone and I tell them I'm going to go home and get a gun and come back and kill them, I'm likely to get arrested, especially if I've had a history in the past of going home, getting a gun and killing someone.



Yes. Because that's both act and intent. That'd be quite a non sequitur.


----------



## cupper

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, not true. If I'm peeved off at someone and I tell them I'm going to go home and get a gun and come back and kill them, I'm likely to get arrested, especially if I've had a history in the past of going home, getting a gun and killing someone.



Your intent would be to scare me by making the threat, and then you have the act when you actually make the threat.

I agree with your point though, it was an oversimplification. But my main point still stands. He may have had the intent of restarting his pursuit, but the sanctions were working, and he was never able to move beyond intent.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Prime Minister Chrétien was a very, very skilled and successful _retail politician_; he 'sold' Canadians what they wanted and they repaid him with their support.

He was also incredibly lucky: Lucien Bouchard and Parson Preston Manning gave him three majorities in a row; there was no way Ontario would have given the Liberals 100 seats had _Reform_ not been (not just portrayed as) an unknown, socially conservative, prairie populist _movement_ with few policies that appealed to the _moderate middle_.

I didn't like much of anything about Jean Chrétien: I thought and still think that he was, personally, dishonest and that he he used his official power to cover up acts that _might_ have landed a less well connected man in jail; I thought and still think that while his fiscal _instincts_ were right (balanced budget, etc) he chose a sneaky and, ultimately ineffective way of balancing the books - he offloaded the big debt producing programmes to AB, BC and ON; I thought and still think that his foreign and defence policies were based solely and exclusively on domestic political concerns; and I thought and still think that he was and still is a bully.

That being said, he wasn't a bad prime minister, about on a par, perhaps, with Abbott, Thompson and Bowell - not as bad as Trudeau, not as good as Borden or Diefenbaker. But he wasn't a monster and he was what a solid _plurality_ of our fellow Canadians wanted - he was what they bought and they paid for him, too, with the _'northern peso'_.


----------

