# Canadian Military involvment in Iraq, and Canadian political support. - The Canadian Forces going to Iraq?



## McG (24 Mar 2003)

Alliance tables motion to support U.S. 
4:34 PM EST  Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 

By ALLISON DUNFIELD
Globe and Mail Update 

The Canadian Alliance tabled a motion Monday asking that Canada support U.S. coalition troops in Iraq â€” the latest round of ammunition fired at the Liberals after Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced last week that Canada would not take part in military action.

Stockwell Day, the party‘s foreign affairs critic, set forth the opposition motion which will be voted on in the House of Commons on Tuesday after Question Period.

It asks that the House "endorse the decision of the Allied international coalition of military forces to enforce Iraq‘s compliance with its international obligations under successive resolutions of the United Nations Security Council."

The motion also asks that Canada express support for Canadian Forces members already in the Persian Gulf region who are carrying out escort duties for British and U.S. troops, that Canada support the people of Iraq spiritually during the war and with reconstruction efforts afterward.

During Question Period Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said that while Canada is not participating in military action in Iraq, it still has much the same goals as the United States--that is, to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

. . .

On Saturday, one of Mr. Chrétien‘s own MPs, David Pratt, chairman of the House of Commons defence committee, said the time has come for Canada to go to war alongside the United States in Iraq.

"I‘m not trying to go out of my way to disagree with the government and make this my own personal cause-célèbre," said Mr. Pratt, who did not join his caucus in a standing ovation after Mr. Chrétien‘s announcement Canada would not take part. "On certain issues I think you really have to go with your instinct and do what you feel is right, and for me, this is the right thing to do."

Last week, Mr. Chrétien was forced repeatedly to defend his decision in the House of Commons. Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper accused him of backing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein‘s right to power.

. . .


----------



## Jungle (24 Mar 2003)

So McG, what‘s your opinion on this ? I know chances are slim, but personnaly, I still hope our govt will wake the fock up.


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2003)

I like to believe that Saddam could have been forced to accept the world‘s demands if the UN had been more decisive (Unfortunately, certain nations on both sides of the debate could not agree on the _decisive compromise_).

That being said . . .

The war has started, and it is in the world‘s best interests that it be finished right.  To achieve this, Canada should contribute what we can.

At the very least, our government should tell us what conditions they feel would warrant our participation.  "When the UN votes for war," is not one of these conditions.  What has to happen in Iraq before our government will tell the UN that it must vote for to sanction the war?


----------



## ninty9 (24 Mar 2003)

Theres no way this will pass.

The NDP and Bloc are calling for the Naval Vessles on OP. Opollo and embedded troops to come home.

Heres a layout of the house of commons:

 http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt10a.htm 

Liberal:172

CA:66

Bloc:38

NDP:13

PC:12

So we know for sure 25 against the motion.

66 for CA.  PC could probably swing either way.  So right here you‘re looking at passing the motion.

But then the liberals with 172 seats smashes everyone down.  Liberals won‘t vote for it.  They won‘t go against the govt and they have been very supportive of Chretiens no war stance.

So your looking at 200-220 voting no and 60-80 voting yes.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Mar 2003)

Well, Alberta is sending its support seperately to President Bush, if it is any consolation.


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2003)

There are positive signs that our government is not taking an entirely "no war stance."

Won‘t pull Canadian troops out, McCallum says 
4:40 PM EST  Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 
By ALLISON DUNFIELD
Globe and Mail Update 

Pulling Canadian ships out of the Persian Gulf area or removing Canadian soldiers from an exchange program with U.S. and British troops would be "cowardly" and would put our allies at risk, Defence Minister John McCallum said Monday.

In Question Period, opposition MPs urged the government to reconsider its refusal to remove the about 30 Canadian troops from the Iraq area after at least five U.S. soldiers were captured by Iraqis on Sunday. Images of the prisoners were shown on Iraqi television and by other media around the world.

. . . 

Opposition MPs also asked Mr. McCallum whether he would consider recalling Canadian ships currently stationed in the Gulf on an antiterrorism mission, escorting U.S. and British vessels.

. . .

But Mr. McCallum refused.

"If we were to do what he is suggesting, at best we would offend our allies and at worst we would put our allies at risk. And we are not about to do that," the Defence Minister said in the Commons.

. . .


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Mar 2003)

Is it me, or has our policy towards operations in the Middle East actually remained fairly constant?  Putting aside the questions of what anyone thinks we should have done, or what we are capable of doing realistically, it seems the government‘s position has been fairly steady.

Not to suggest it was handled perfectly; the Sun today suggested that PM Chretien never telephoned Pres. Bush to explain our position; but at least it has been clear all along that we won‘t commit ground troops.  Not sure how we could have, really, even had we wanted to.  Putting aside also the "years of neglect" stuff (which is all true enough), I think the government acted responsibly given current combat capability.


----------



## Greeny (26 Mar 2003)

I dont think the chance of canada participating is entirely out of question. If allied forces were to find chemical weapons or to find the manufacturing plants the world opinion could turn around dramatically. And if iraqi forces were to use chemical weapons the outcome would be pretty obvious.
INTERESTING FACT:Iraqi forces have been found with gas masks and marines have captured a hospital that was being used for military purpose and they found viles of antidote for chemicals weapons along side weaponry. Nothing ****ing just interesting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Mar 2003)

When americans complain that their allies should support them in this war and condem people for not jumping to their side i have 3 words.


World War Two.


----------



## nbk (27 Mar 2003)

Don‘t forget World War One.


----------



## McG (30 Mar 2003)

Has our policy towards operations in the Middle East actually remained fairly constant?  Have a look at some of Paul Cellucci‘s comments on Canada‘s lack of support to this war.



> But Canada remains a crucial partner in this global war on terrorism, and we are grateful for that. Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and military personnel continue anti-terrorist operations in the Persian Gulf. Canada is preparing to play a major role in the continued stability and security of Afghanistan through ISAF. This summer Canada will deploy a battle group to Afghanistan for a 12-month period.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and CSIS have provided extraordinary co-operation, as I mentioned earlier. . . .
> 
> ...


Full speech by U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci


----------



## McG (5 Apr 2003)

Manley blasts Harper, critics 

By SHAWN McCARTHY
From Saturday‘s Globe and Mail 
Apr. 5, 2003 

Ottawa â€” Deputy Prime Minister John Manley conceded yesterday that the government should have made its support clearer for coalition forces in Iraq â€” while accusing Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper of inflaming anti-Canadian sentiment in the United States.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Manley lashed out at Mr. Harper and other critics of the Liberal government who continue to highlight anti-American comments made by some Liberal MPs and a cabinet minister.

And in separate comments to the U.S. news service Associated Press, Mr. Manley said the government failed to express clearly its support for the U.S.-led coalition after announcing its refusal to join the fight.

"I think it should have been part of the message from the beginning," he said. "There ought to have been no ambiguity in how we thought the conflict should conclude, once it‘s engaged."

. . .


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2003)

Heres a good example of the goverments mentality.

The goverment wants all gun owners across canada to register their firearms against the advice of around 99% of the police departments and experts in the field.
It was suposed to cost 2 million. Up to date it‘s costed taxpayers over a billion dollars and it‘s a total flop. Police chiefs have said over and over it will not work and be nearly impossible to enforce. Government still went ahead with it. Completly stalling and running out of money they could just admit they goofed and cancel the whole thing but then they would lose face so they asked for another 59 million. (Which will hold over until the next election then its someone elses problem) Im not sure the exact details about it but basically a good number of people who were suposed to vote on it wanted to just $hit can the whole thing but the liberal gov‘t said it‘s a "vote of confidence". Apparently if someone does not go along with the vote to spend an aditional 59 mil, their out. So they voted and surprise surprise 59 million dollars was dumped into a doomed program that likely won‘t see past the next election, just to save face. I know thats a little off topic but in a way it proves a point about the war. Experts can make the best case possible to the government but they won‘t go to war unless for a reason THEY decide it‘s bennifical, not us the voters.


----------



## Pugil (5 Apr 2003)

I dont know why the rest of Canada is so ashamed that our government doesnt support the US-led war on Iraq. We are a sovereign country we have the right to be against this war but that doesnt mean that our friendship is over. During WW2, when Britain was set ablazed by Nazi bombers and was very close to be invaded by them, The US didnt even flinch to send their troops to help their Allie, it was only when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour that they decided to join the war effort.

I think we care more for America than they care for us. During the Vietnam war, Canada didnt support the US and I dont think that our economy was affected by that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2003)

Economy is a lot different then ww2 or even the 70s.
I figure the US learned their lesson about sitting on the fence.


----------



## nbk (5 Apr 2003)

Actually during the Vietnam war Canada played a large roll supplying the USA with all sorts of arms and munitions. In fact the unemployment level fell to record lows of something like 3.9%.


----------



## Infantry21 (2 Feb 2004)

I personally belive Canada should go to Iraq and help our American brothers out. These guys are putting it all on the line and were not doing a **** thing. Pull Canadians out of Bosnia and send them to Iraq. Bosnia is done with. I recently enlisted in the Canadain army in the infantry and I want to see some combat. The only way this will happen is if I go to iraq! Does anyone know if Canada‘s future plans are to go to iraq? I‘m only 20 so some of you are thinking this stupid kid just wants to get himseld killed well no I don‘t but I want to die knowing I made a difference serving my country.


----------



## portcullisguy (2 Feb 2004)

Ohhhhh boy!


----------



## stukirkpatrick (2 Feb 2004)

I wouldn‘t call our Afghanistan deployment not doing  anything, considering thats the reason why the US has forgiven us for not joining them in the gulf and I definitely wouldn‘t consider a tour in Kabul a pleasure trip to the local mall.

Its starting to look like we will remain in Afghanistan for a while, so if you want to see combat, then that would be your best chance.  The forces has neither the resources or money to commit to a new operation, so an Iraq deployment is unlikely.


----------



## pegged (2 Feb 2004)

> I want to see some combat.


You‘re not going to be saying that when you end up seeing it. I haven‘t been, but I‘ve read enough first person accounts of war that it‘s not an experience to be desired. I understand your ambitions though.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (2 Feb 2004)

Ive heard, they calling off all major tours / operations for a wile. Once they boys get back from kabul.


----------



## onecat (2 Feb 2004)

The Afghanistan deployment is helping our American allies.  And its as close to combat as your going get.  Its not like if Canadian troop were deployed to Iraq that they would be sent out on search and destroy missions ( sorry not sure what the US is calling thses types missions).  Canada woudl most likely be in one sector and a very small one at that.  

Not trying to get on you, but why are you some keen on getting out there and killing someone?


----------



## scm77 (2 Feb 2004)

This doesn‘t exactly fit in with the original question, but I think that it would have been good if Canada had joined the war in Iraq and worked with the the British Forces in the south.


----------



## combat_medic (2 Feb 2004)

Brent: Canada isn‘t just going to pick up and deploy to Iraq just because you feel like seeing combat. The decision to not go to Iraq was made for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the CF is drastically short of manpower, equipment, funds, and most of all, public support. Despite your personal desire to go overseas and be a cowboy, not everyone else in Canada shares your desire. And the funny thing about being in a democracy, the majority rules.

Why don‘t you get though your training, get a little time in and a little experience , and maybe you‘ll reevaluate your stance. All the vets I‘ve spoken to who‘ve seen active combat have said that they would never want to do it again. They all speak of it as the worst thing they‘ve ever done, and many have nightmares still, 60 years later.


----------



## babicma (2 Feb 2004)

Are you serious!!??

Go to Iraq to support our American Brothers!!

Why dont you go and join the US Army or even the Royal Marines if you really want to go fight a war that is‘nt even in the interests of Canada or its citizens.

Iraq, as the Americans are seeing it now, is one big waste of time, money, and most of all LIFE!

Do you honestly believe that the CF is in the position for such a deployment??


Here are the links to the US Army and the Royal Marines, I think its easier to join the Royal Marines if you really are Canadian:

 http://www.goarmy.com/index07.htm 

 http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2650.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Feb 2004)

I think Brent has been playing too much Ghost Recon


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (2 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] I think Brent has been playing too much Ghost Recon [/qb]


    

Brent, I agree with you to a point. i feel Canada should have gone to iraq to help out in some ways, even if it were logistics contributing a CC-130 would show we cared. But im also aware the Canadian Army has neither the resources nor the people to do so as others have said.

I want to see some "action" now, but im not stupid. I know that what i want now wont be what i‘ll want when Im actually sitting behind a mound of sand with zips and hisses going over my head. I more or less want the experience, so I can sit back and say I‘ve experienced it and have come to the conclusion that its not a nice thing. im stubborn, and need to figure this stuff out first-hand. otherwise i‘ll have regrets, but I doubt this will happen in the CF.

Simply going into combat isnt as easy as you make it sound. its a whole different picture when you‘re life is on the line, and people are actually trying to take it. And if thats my opinion on it with the odd fist fight as my only fighting experience, really try to comprehend what those who HAVE experienced it feel.


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (2 Feb 2004)

Brent i got an idea...play paintball and/or Airsoft just so you can get a semi-realistic idea of whats going to happen to you once you do see combat...i play paintball on a regular basis and if real combat is anything like paintball (i get shot alot) then i‘d like to avoid the combat part as much as possible...


----------



## Korus (2 Feb 2004)

Nah. Range in paintball is really short. You can get wasted by snipers from much further away in real life.


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (2 Feb 2004)

Yet another good reason to avoid combat *nods*


----------



## Infanteer (2 Feb 2004)

> Why dont you go and join the US Army or even the Royal Marines if you really want to go fight a war that is‘nt even in the interests of Canada or its citizens.


Are you sure about that.  I think upon reflection that the War on Terrorism, Middle East stability, oil, and the spread of democracy to an area dominated by militant autocracies are legitimate security interests for Canada and its citizens.



> Iraq, as the Americans are seeing it now, is one big waste of time, money, and most of all LIFE!


I am sure the 25 million liberated people of Iraq think that....



> Do you honestly believe that the CF is in the position for such a deployment??


You‘re right...that does present us with a problem.  Why do we say we have three Brigade‘s in the Army when I personally heard from the mouth of the Chief of Defence Staff that we could not deploy one.  Someone should be accountable for the poor level of our preparedness.  The Aussies and Brits can sustain such commitments, so there is no excuse for us to shirk from duties as a world leader (Australia isn‘t even a member of the G-8)


----------



## koalorka (2 Feb 2004)

Brent_B, try joining the USMC or Royal Marines, and cut down on the SOCOM II.

And, yes Infanteer, the people of Iraq must be overjoyed with their present situation. Recently David Kay admitted that everyone was wrong, about WMD‘s and the threat Iraq posed. Turns out Bush and Rummy lied with premeditation and the Pentagon fed false and wildly exaggerated reports about Iraq.

Confronted by these nasty facts, Bush tried to rebrand the unprovoked war by claiming it was justified because Saddam was such a horrid man. That is arrant hipocrisy. When Saddam comitted his worst atrocities - in the 80‘s - he was a close U.S. ally keeping the fundamentalist revolution at bay for the U.S., secretly supported with weapons and intelligence.

Do you honestly still believe in what you are saying? Aren‘t you ashamed of yourself? How could you say bombing some country for no reason is in the interest of Canadian citizens. 

Though I strongly detest Saddam, I hate propaganda of any kind - especially when it comes from a western democracy. It‘s good that Canadians did not join the U.S., at least we still have our honor and reputation serving a worthy cause in Afghanistan. But it is scary that people like you approve aggression that violates international law nad basic norms of civilized behaviour.

Back in March I supported the war. I knew it was not to "liberate" the poor people of Iraq, but getting rid of Saddam sounded like the right thing to do at the time. But when I first saw M1A1‘s raiding Baghdad (CNN gun camera footage), blowing HEAT shells into every building, and anything that moved I could recall the Warsaw uprising in 1944, when Nazi armour acted in the same way trying to suppress the insurgency. That just wasn‘t right. My support slowly started to deteriorate.


----------



## koalorka (2 Feb 2004)

Just trying to stimulate some fiery debate...


----------



## dwild40 (2 Feb 2004)

Bravo FUBAR


----------



## scm77 (2 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by FUBAR:
> [qb]
> Confronted by these nasty facts, Bush tried to rebrand the unprovoked war by claiming it was justified because Saddam was such a horrid man. That is arrant hipocrisy. When Saddam comitted his worst atrocities - in the 80‘s - he was a close U.S. ally keeping the fundamentalist revolution at bay for the U.S., secretly supported with weapons and intelligence.
> [/qb]


FUBAR must right dialouge for the Toronto Sun, because a few days ago someone said that exact paragraph, or atleast all the key points on a report.  The report may have said the other parts of what fubar said, but I specificaly remember that exact part.

My bad, I thought it was from the CBC, but I realized after I posted it that it was from the Toronto Sun.


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (2 Feb 2004)

yeah looks alot like this one...

  http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_feb1.html


----------



## logau (2 Feb 2004)

Suggest you all get a copy of Stalin‘s Secret War by Nikolai Tolstoy - which explains what a Stalinist State is - which is what Iraq under Saddam was. Its what Syria is and same for North Korea and before that Cambodia under Pol Pot.

This is what you can expect in a Stalinist State

The Russians under Stalin are estimated to have lost 35 million of their own people in WW2. At least 7.5 million of these were from abuse by the Russian government try this link on a gold mining cmplex known as Kolyma  http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/sjk/kolyma.html 

Would you be surprised if I told you we sent a few battalions from Victoria to Validivostok in 1919 to chase Commies? I‘m not kidding!

Draw your own conclusions - but just because it gets messy in Iraq or Afghanistan is no reason not to take out governments that would throw you in a dirty hole forever without batting an eyelash then go back to the Swedish Bikini Tean on MTV.

Globe and Mail today
Mark MacKinnon

In Russia‘s icebound north, Stalin‘s victims are still serving time  

By MARK MacKINNON
From Monday‘s Globe and Mail 

Vorkuta, Russia â â€ Her treasured black-and-white photographs testify that Lyubov Kalashnikova was a lithe 21-year-old student when she first arrived in Vorkuta aboard a prison train from Moscow.

At the height of wartime paranoia, the Young Communist was arrested as the Nazis approached the capital. It was 1942, and she was sentenced to 10 years in the gulag for allegedly betraying her country.

Sixty-two years later, Ms. Kalashnikova lies in her tiny bed and dreams of the world outside this icebound Arctic outpost. Impoverished and half-paralyzed, she still hopes to get back her old apartment in Moscow and reclaim the remaining years of her life.

"I wish I had never come to Vorkuta, this cursed place," the 83-year-old said, clutching angrily with her good right hand at the tattered blanket wrapped around her.

Although she was "rehabilitated" decades ago â â€ the charges against her were dismissed as false â â€ she was prevented first by law and then by her economic situation from leaving her urban prison.

"I‘ve been in jail my whole life. Now, it is worse than when I was in the gulag," she said.

"Then, at least I was with other people. Now, I am alone and still in Vorkuta."

Ms. Kalashnikova is among the hundreds of gulag survivors who never left this grey city where the snow melts for just two months of the year and winter temperatures often hit â â€50 C. They are Stalin‘s forgotten victims, still serving time for offending a dictator who died half a century ago.

Now, as the Russian government prepares a mass retreat from its overpopulated north, some are at last being offered the chance to return south.

Under a project sponsored by the World Bank, the beginning of a mass population transfer that could eventually involve hundreds of thousands of people, some of those trapped in Vorkuta and other dying Arctic settlements are being offered cash to move south and start over.

Yet even though the chance to leave finally looms, Ms. Kalashnikova wants more than what they‘re offering. She wants her old life back.

Moscow is not on the list of destinations available under the World Bank-sponsored program, and Ms. Kalashnikova has no interest in moving to an unfamiliar city just to start over again at her age and in her physical condition. "I am a Muscovite," she said. "I want to go back to my beloved Moscow, to see the Bolshoi Theatre again and visit the graves of my relatives before I die."

The government and the World Bank are running into this unexpected stumbling block repeatedly as their efforts pick up steam.

Of the 700-plus former gulag inmates still living in Vorkuta, many say that although they want to leave, they feel they‘re owed a little more than a fistful of money and a train ticket to an unfamiliar destination.

They don‘t want apartments in southern Siberia; they want to go back to their homes in Ukraine, Tatarstan, Belarus and Germany. If they can‘t, they‘d rather stay.

It‘s not just the gulag veterans who are resisting. Although Vorkuta deputy mayor Valeri Belyaev talks of the need to slice the city‘s population to something like 80,000 from its current 130,000, of whom about 40,000 are pensioners who strain the municipal budget, the World Bank program has seen few takers.

Only a quarter of the first 6,000 available places on the city‘s relocation list have been filled. Many other residents want a deal, most of them mining families who flocked here after coal was discovered under the tundra in the 1940s but now find themselves put out of work by the gradual closing of the mines.

While the Russian government‘s resettlement efforts have been under way for several years now, the $80-million (U.S.) pilot project sponsored by the World Bank is the most determined effort so far to start moving people south.

Vorkuta residents who fit the bill â â€ the disabled and the war veterans first, the pensioners next â â€ are being offered $2,000 to $4,000 each as start-up cash, as well as help finding an apartment in the south.

"It‘s too little money, but this is what‘s available," Mr. Belyaev said. "It‘s a free choice. Nobody is making anybody take this offer. Nobody is being forced to move from Vorkuta."

The same experiment is being carried out with World Bank help in the areas of Norilsk and Magadan, two other regions synonymous with the gulag system through which an estimated 18 million people passed in 50 years.

According to some estimates, a proper program to shut down the antiquated mining towns and prison settlements that dot Russia‘s Arctic would cost as much as $5-billion. There simply isn‘t that kind of money available in federal coffers.

Andrei Markov, project manager for the World Bank, says Russia‘s north may be overpopulated by as many as 800,000 people, a relic of the period when settling the region seemed a laudable national goal. Vorkuta, he says, is a perfect example of the problem.

He calls it a "completely artificial" settlement that never should have been built. "With normal economic rationale, nobody would have ever built a city of 250,000 [Vorkuta‘s population at the height of the Soviet era] in the Arctic, on permafrost," he said.

Although there‘s coal in the region, he noted sardonically, the city‘s heating system is fired by oil that has to be brought in from hundreds of kilometres away.

Vorkuta now is little more than a city of ghosts, haunted by its terrible past. The tens of thousands who died here seem to linger accusingly in the empty apartment blocks at the end of every street, and in the graveyards that surround this city like an army laying siege.

Nonetheless, there‘s a sense of community among the survivors who remain here, one that springs from the shared experience of having lived through the horrors of the labour camps. They say they hate Vorkuta, but it‘s become their home.

"It‘s not quite a prison any more, but they can‘t imagine any other life," said Yevgenia Khaidarova, head of the local branch of Memorial, a human-rights group that represents gulag victims.

"Here, they are among their own. They‘ve adopted this place."

Even if the government ever made the perfect relocation offer, some aren‘t sure they would take it.

Alexander Ilin has taken some pride in recent years in serving as an unwelcome reminder to those who would rather forget an ugly part of this country‘s past. He knows a better life â â€ certainly an easier retirement, in a more livable climate â â€ lies waiting for him in the south, but he feels uncomfortable with the idea of leaving.

Mr. Ilin moved here in 1946 as a teenager to be with his father, who was sentenced to hard labour as a "traitor" for surrendering to superior German troops.

He grew up behind the barbed wire of the Vorkutlag prison camp, his every move seen from above by the armed guards who manned the sinister watchtowers at each corner of the camp.

Now 71, he‘s afraid that Vorkuta, a part of history scarcely mentioned in the history books used in most Russian schools today, will die if he and others like him leave.

"There are seven man-made wonders in the world, seven beautiful things. Vorkuta is not a monument like the pyramids, but it is our history, our bitter history, and we can‘t leave it behind," he said.

"Rather than let this place die, we should make this place into a monument so that we never repeat these events in the future."


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2004)

Wow, you never cease to amaze me Fubar, did you borrow tmbluesflats tin-foil hat.


> And, yes Infanteer, the people of Iraq must be overjoyed with their present situation. Recently David Kay admitted that everyone was wrong, about WMD‘s and the threat Iraq posed. Turns out Bush and Rummy lied with premeditation and the Pentagon fed false and wildly exaggerated reports about Iraq.


And your point is?  Regardless of what the original intention was, does it change the fact that an Iraqi citizen doesn‘t have to worry about Uday and Qusay cruising by and shooting him and taking his daughter to their sex palace.



> Confronted by these nasty facts, Bush tried to rebrand the unprovoked war by claiming it was justified because Saddam was such a horrid man. That is arrant hipocrisy. When Saddam comitted his worst atrocities - in the 80‘s - he was a close U.S. ally keeping the fundamentalist revolution at bay for the U.S., secretly supported with weapons and intelligence.


Your trying to prove a point by painting the world in black and white.  Do you consider the Allied Lend Lease Act with the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazi‘s to be an act of errant hypocrisy, despite the fact that Stalin turned out to be a bigger monster?



> Do you honestly still believe in what you are saying? Aren‘t you ashamed of yourself? How could you say bombing some country for no reason is in the interest of Canadian citizens.


Yes, I do, because I‘ve seen first hand what 90% of the world is like.  
While performing routine house searches in Bosnia, I talked to a man holding his infant who‘s house we were going through.  He seemed genuinely happy to help us go through his stuff because he knew we were there to get rid of weapons.  He supported us because he lost his mother, brothers, and a kid in the war and was sick of all of it.  He was happy that the West bombed his country in 1995 because we were there to do the right thing, and ensure that with the creation of a civil society, his kids would not have to live through that.
So if the endstate of the Iraq War means another country free of authoritarian dictatorship and a backwards political society, then as a human being I am happy with the actions the Coalition has taken.




> Though I strongly detest Saddam, I hate propaganda of any kind - especially when it comes from a western democracy. It‘s good that Canadians did not join the U.S., at least we still have our honor and reputation serving a worthy cause in Afghanistan. But it is scary that people like you approve aggression that violates international law nad basic norms of civilized behaviour.


And the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq was what, US led coalition to replace an unfriendly an unacceptable regime in the Middle East?  I find it scary that people like you have the moral cowardice to sit and hide under the umbrella of freedoms you were fortunate to be accorded by living here, and yet say that we‘re wrong to bring them to others.




> Back in March I supported the war. I knew it was not to "liberate" the poor people of Iraq, but getting rid of Saddam sounded like the right thing to do at the time. But when I first saw M1A1‘s raiding Baghdad (CNN gun camera footage), blowing HEAT shells into every building, and anything that moved I could recall the Warsaw uprising in 1944, when Nazi armour acted in the same way trying to suppress the insurgency. That just wasn‘t right. My support slowly started to deteriorate.


Geez, maybe you shouldn‘t pay attention to the propaganda than, eh?


----------



## casing (4 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by FUBAR:
> [qb] ... Confronted by these nasty facts, Bush tried to rebrand the unprovoked war by claiming it was justified because Saddam was such a horrid man... [/qb]


FUBAR, you raise good points, but your passages are word for word from  Eric Margolis‘ article, as noted in another post above.  Are you Eric Margolis?  If not, I would suggest that when you decide to plagiarize something you give full credit where credit is due.  I‘m sure Mr. Margolis is flattered by your choice to use his words, but I‘m sure he would be even happier to know you noted where they came from.

Thanks to scm77 and Yllw_Ninja who did the busting work on this.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

Ah...good to see you have a propensity for original thought as well, Fubar.


----------



## Franko (4 Feb 2004)

Brent B...grow up and give your head a shake   

Regards


----------



## Enzo (4 Feb 2004)

Brent,

Babicima had it right, go to the Brits or the Yanks. If you want combat, they will provide you with the opportunity. If you want combat as a Canadian soldier, then there are no guarantees. Sorry about that chum.

PS

Ever hear of a "psychobaby?"


----------



## Pikache (9 Jun 2004)

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040609.wnato0609_3/BNStory/International/

By OLIVER MOORE
Globe and Mail Update 

Quitting the G8 summit a day early to resume a tight election campaign, Prime Minister Paul Martin left open the slim possibility Wednesday that Canadian troops could become involved in Iraq.

He was questioned on the issue after U.S. President George W. Bush called for a greater NATO involvement in Iraq, where several nations in the military alliance are currently deployed but where NATO, as a whole, remains absent.

â Å“We are members of NATO and we're perfectly prepared to take our responsibilities as members of NATO,â ? Mr. Martin told reporters at a televised news conference from the summit site on Sea Island, Ga.

â Å“If the Iraqi people wanted NATO to be there and requested that, I am sure that NATO would agree to accede to that request and Canada would participate. But we're already present in Afghanistan, we're already present in Haiti and everyone recognizes the extent to which Canada has dedicated troops to those two countries.â ?

A senior official told Canadian Press before Mr. Martin spoke that Canada will offer an increase in its non-military assistance to Iraq. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that institution-building would remain the focus of Canadian involvement.

Mr. Martin picked up the same theme in his remarks, saying that Canada currently has no troops to send but would do what was necessary to fulfill its role in the military alliance.

â Å“Fundamentally, with the new Iraqi government in place, it is up to that government, after assessing the situation, to make those requests,â ? he said.

â Å“If the new Iraqi government were to ask for further NATO involvement, then that's obviously something that all of the parties would be prepared to take a look at,â ? he said. â Å“I have said that we're certainly prepared to participate, I do not believe we'd be participating with further troop movements, but we're certainly going to participate with expertise.â ?

Mr. Bush, who got a boost this week with a new United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing a multinational force in Iraq, told his G8 colleagues he wants a bigger role for NATO in Iraq, perhaps in training the Iraq army. He conceded, though, that many NATO nations do not have any surplus troops to commit. 

France's Jacques Chirac, a vocal critic of the Iraq war, said more NATO involvement wouldn't be "relevant or well-understood."

"I do not believe that it is NATO's purpose to intervene in Iraq," he said. "I have reservations vis-a-vis this initiative."

Any NATO role in Iraq would depend on requests from the Iraqi government and decisions made by all the allied countries, a spokesman for the military alliance told Associated Press Television News on Wednesday, echoing Mr. Martin's position.

At his own news conference, Mr. Martin defended his decision to leave the summit early while the heads of the other industrialized nations carry on for another day of meetings. He said that the agenda Thursday consists of topics that he has discussed with the other leaders, who know full well where Canada stands.

â Å“The plans were that I was going to return, and that's why I spent so much time in the bilaterals, meeting with all of the individual heads of state,â ? he said. â Å“I've probably done more bilaterals than almost anybody, in order to make sure the Canadian point of view was felt. I will have made, by the end of this day, three major presentations.â ?

He said that, by the time he leaves Georgia, he will have made major presentations on private-sector development, nuclear proliferation and the security meltdown in Haiti.

â Å“In the time that has been open to me here I've done a great deal, and I think Canada has marked some very, very important points.â ?

Although he has no public events planned for Thursday, Mr. Martin made it clear that he is reverting to campaign mode.

â Å“There are times when ... you do public events and there are times when you do other kinds of work in the middle of a campaign,â ? he said.


----------



## scm77 (11 Jun 2004)

How can Martin critisize Harper becuase he would have sent troops to Iraq, when he could very well do the same thing?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2004)

Because Martin has proved himself to be completely two-faced hypocrite.

Without a doubt the biggest disappointment I've had in years. 

Just to put this into context, I was very optimistic when he took over for Chretion and he's proven to be just pathetic.




Matthew.  :-[


----------



## scm77 (11 Jun 2004)

I, like Blackshirt was also optimistic when he took over.  He was saying how good he's gonna be, for Canada and the Canadian Forces.  Now whenever he's asked what his plans are for the CF he just says we are waiting for the review to be finished.  It won't be finished until after the election so that means he can stay out of the defence debate and try to make Harper look like a war monger.  I wouldn't be suprised if once the get the review back they'll spout some bull about how no major funding increases are needed.


----------



## meni0n (11 Nov 2004)

MONTREAL (CP) - A leading member of Iraq's National Assembly urged Canada on Thursday to send peacekeepers to help stabilize the war-ravaged country. 

"This is a time where we need Canada to participate," Dr. Rajaa Khuzai said in a speech at McGill University. "We need Canada to participate in the peacekeeping forces. Iraqis want to live in peace, that's all." She said international forces are required to help foster peace and security in her embattled Middle Eastern country. 

The British-trained obstetrician, who is on a North American tour, returned to her homeland in 1977. She endured years of wars, retribution from Saddam Hussein's forces and medical shortages caused by international sanctions. 

After being asked by the Americans to be one of a few women on the former Iraqi governing council, Khuzai worked to ensure Iraq's constitution required that a quarter of political positions be filled by women. 

She defended the military strikes on insurgents in Fallujah and thanked Americans for "liberating" her country. 

Some expatriate Iraqis challenged her characterization of U.S. involvement in Iraq. 

"They came to end the (Hussein) regime they made," said Amar Sabih, 42, who preferred to call the Americans occupiers. 

"What we got was only the freedom of speech, not the freedom to act." 


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/11/11/710336-cp.html


----------



## pbi (12 Nov 2004)

Can't see it anytime soon. Cheers.


----------



## NavyGrunt (12 Nov 2004)

We're a peace keeping nation......and they are asking us specifically for peacekeepers....to me that rings like "put up or shut up", we cant say we're peace keepers if we wont answer the call. just my 2. But again i dont see it happening. We wouldnt want Europe to think badly of us   :

Im being sarcastic in this post. ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Nov 2004)

Aaron how are we suppose to change our reputation of being just peacekeepers when members of the CF such as yourself considers ourselves as such?  Maybe its not the Canadian publics view we have to change but the view of the CF.


----------



## NavyGrunt (12 Nov 2004)

Ex Im the one who thinks we use the term peacekeeper as a cop out. Now someone has called our bluff. If we arent warriors, or "peacekeepers", what are we? Im frustrated Ex.


----------



## jonsey (12 Nov 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Aaron how are we suppose to change our reputation of being just peacekeepers when members of the CF such as yourself considers ourselves as such?  Maybe its not the Canadian publics view we have to change but the view of the CF.



Whether or not the CF should be peacekeepers or not isn't the point. The point is, is that the government calls the CF peacekeepers, and now a country in trouble is asking for those peacekeepers. Should Canada ignore them now? I can understand not going in at first when the U.S. asked, but now, it's not the U.S. asking, it's the Iraqi's. Should we not help them now because we didn't agree with the American's reason for going in?


----------



## 48Highlander (12 Nov 2004)

Not to split hairs here....but, this person is a "leading member of the Iraq national assembly".  That means she's very much like one of our MP's, but deffinitely not like the PM.  In addition, she made this statement at a speech at McGill university, not in a formal address to our government.  Now if one of our MP's, (let's just for fun use Carolyn Parish as an example) went down to the US and in a speech at MIT stated that the US has no place in Iraq, would it really mean anything?  Other than that she's an idiot?

If the Iraqis really wanted Canadian troops over there that badly, they'd make an official request to our government.  As it stands, this is just one person voicing her own beliefs/desires.


----------



## enfield (12 Nov 2004)

I believe the Iraqi Government has made requests to the UN, the EU, and the international community in general for more troops. The US has certainlt let it be known they they're looking for more troops. 
Would, or could, we participate? Thats a politically dangerous question, and I would suspect that as long as the US retains control over the posture and mandate of the forces, or until a UN mandate is given, we would not send anyone. 

I personally believe the world should get over their opposition to the US, accept that the war happened, but realize that its in everyone's interest to help out the Iraqis on humanitarian grounds - but this would require compromise from the US as well.


----------



## meni0n (12 Nov 2004)

What if the US provides lift and a temporary base. Would our governement conside it then?


----------



## KevinB (12 Nov 2004)

Enfield said:
			
		

> I personally believe the world should get over their opposition to the US, accept that the war happened, but realize that its in everyone's interest to help out the Iraqis on humanitarian grounds



True - and a point that I largely argue.


----------



## Recce41 (12 Nov 2004)

Men0n
 The US cannot even get their troops over there now. They are renting aircraft.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Nov 2004)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Men0n
> The US cannot even get their troops over there now. They are renting aircraft.



?

Could you explain this a bit more?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (12 Nov 2004)

She can call for as many Canadian Peacekeepers as she wants.  All the PM has to do to weasel out of it is say "We can't do anything unless it's sanctioned by the UN"

Even Iraqi's themselves can cry for Canadian soldiers.  It won't make a difference as long as we let the UN decide our foreign policy and make our international decisions..  :


----------



## HollywoodHitman (12 Nov 2004)

Even if we wanted to contribute troops to Iraq, I submit that we simply couldn't manage it without a large scale callout of the Reserves, and even then it would be difficult once we started to sustain casualties. Any small scale effort would seem token to the rest of the countries participating there and it would be a disservice to the Canadian military members who would go. If we were to commit to any effort in Iraq, our troops would deserve the full combat capabilities of our military, not just one or 2 companies from here and there. One could argue though whether or not Canada could manage a long term, sustained combat operation. As much as I believe in and support our soldiers, I don't think we're capable of it with the current situation in the CF.


----------



## NavyGrunt (12 Nov 2004)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Even if we wanted to contribute troops to Iraq, I submit that we simply couldn't manage it without a large scale callout of the Reserves, and even then it would be difficult once we started to sustain casualties. Any small scale effort would seem token to the rest of the countries participating there and it would be a disservice to the Canadian military members who would go. If we were to commit to any effort in Iraq, our troops would deserve the full combat capabilities of our military, not just one or 2 companies from here and there. One could argue though whether or not Canada could manage a long term, sustained combat operation. As much as I believe in and support our soldiers, I don't think we're capable of it with the current situation in the CF.
> 
> Then what the hell good are we? :-[


----------



## HollywoodHitman (12 Nov 2004)

Aaron, 

My point exactly. Frustrating to know that even if we wanted to send troops, I'm not sure we could.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (13 Nov 2004)

> Even if we wanted to contribute troops to Iraq, I submit that we simply couldn't manage it without a large scale callout of the Reserves, and even then it would be difficult once we started to sustain casualties. Any small scale effort would seem token to the rest of the countries participating there and it would be a disservice to the Canadian military members who would go. If we were to commit to any effort in Iraq, our troops would deserve the full combat capabilities of our military, not just one or 2 companies from here and there. One could argue though whether or not Canada could manage a long term, sustained combat operation. As much as I believe in and support our soldiers, I don't think we're capable of it with the current situation in the CF



As it stands, even though we don't offically support the war, we are doing more than most of the countries in the "coalition of the willing"



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20030331%2FCOSANDERS%2FTPComment%2FTopStories&ord=1095339254459&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true



> Last week, in the midst of his rebuke for our "non-involvement," U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted: "Ironically, the Canadians indirectly provide more support for us in Iraq than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us." In fact, Canada's military contribution puts us right after Britain and Australia in the "coalition of the willing." In some important ways we contribute more than Australia.



ALSO:


> Providing War Planners:
> 
> 
> Canadian military â Å“war plannersâ ? have been working with US Central Command for months. Canada had planners working with US Central Command when it was located at MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida. USCENTCOM is masterminding the entire war against Iraq. Then, on February 11, 2003, Canada disclosed that it had transferred about 25 of our â Å“military plannersâ ? from MacDill to the U.S. Military's forward command post in Qatar, in the Persian Gulf. This is now the â Å“command-and-control headquartersâ ? for the war. Having Canadian war planners helping to set up, prepare and organize this war for months leading up to its launch is a far more significant role than having a few soldiers fighting on the ground. Canada has helped to determine the whole strategy for fighting this war. We are continuing to help run this war from the inside. Canada is part of the brains behind the whole operation. It is unlikely that very many of the nations that are officially recognized as part of the â Å“Coalition of the Willingâ ? are part of the strategic and logistical planning effort coordinated by CENTCOM that has created the schedule for this war and is now pulling all the strings from behind the scenes.
> ...


----------



## HollywoodHitman (13 Nov 2004)

Thats some great information. I knew we had people on exchange postings ets with the UK and US.
While that is a contribution, my interpretation of sending Canadian Troops into Iraq is sending organized fighting units as opposed to pieces of equipt. and pers. here and there. While it's good to know we're making a contribution in some way, I am still not convinced that we have the capability to wage sustained combat operations in Iraq if we were to be called on to do so. 

TM


----------



## GerryCan (15 Nov 2004)

I would have to agree with that. Logistically and manning wise, there isn't a chance we could go to Iraq right now. Perhaps if we fully pulled out of Afghanistan to do so it would be possible, but how would the Canadian Public take it? I can only imagine that it wouldn't be good. Think about what you would see on T.V after the first Canadian convoy was ambushed with casualties. The country would go nuts, throwing the terms, 'peaceful nation', 'peacekeepers' not 'peacemakers'. The general canadian public wouldn't support it and without support from home it won't happen. For example; look at the anti-americanism on this board alone with such phrases as 'yanks' being used. How many people in Canada dislike Americans(i'm not sure why), let alone support their cause.  Don't get me wrong, I'd like to go for sure, I just don't see it happening.


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Nov 2004)

Dr. Rajaa Khuzai 
Thank for your patronage at the international do good services inc. (formerly known as the CF). At this time we are unable to contribute any forces to your country. please sign up on the waiting list and check back every six months for possible service.
Due to finacial restraints in the services we could only afford to send the PAT division out of Borden or  CBO. However we would like to actually succeed at our missions.
If you are not looking for a full BG, perhaps we can offer a CIMIC or MOST team for the man power conscious individuals.
If you would like we can refer your country-in-shambles to the funny-looking-but-effective Peacekeepers Inc. located in the Netherlands (also known as the dutch army).
Thank your interest.


----------



## Recce41 (16 Nov 2004)

Matt Fisher
 I had happen to read it in a paper, and also on a web site. I'm trying to hunt them down. It had some info as, the Strker Bges are very transport dependent. It takes 2/3 Hercs to get a full Strker to Iraq. Parts to supply these Bges are required alot more than a track Bge. And due to this, the US Military is renting cargo space on civie flights.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Nov 2004)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Aaron,
> 
> My point exactly. _Frustrating_ to know that even if we wanted to send troops, I'm not sure we could.



How about _Scary_?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

Ok, I'll agree with that. How does Frustrating, embarassing AND scary sound?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Nov 2004)

Recce41,

I guess on that subject, you could say that the US is 'renting' the majority of its airlift to get its forces in theatre, considering that the majority of troops enroute to or from Iraq are flown on chartered commercial airliners.


----------



## kruger (18 Nov 2004)

It's a dirty war and we can't afford it.


----------



## Andyboy (18 Nov 2004)

All wars are dirty. 
We can't afford it but we can afford "free" childcare?  :


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (18 Nov 2004)

At the present time, i cant see us sending troops to iraq, however, when our commitment is over, we could send troops to iraq. the troops must receive in theatre experience in order to gain valuable knowledge that can only be learnt first hand. i know the forces are strecthed pretty thin right now but if they dont continue to deploy overseas, then if we do have to fight in a major conflict or any for that matter, the troops may not have the insight to engage in combat operations.


----------



## pbi (18 Nov 2004)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Recce41,
> 
> I guess on that subject, you could say that the US is 'renting' the majority of its airlift to get its forces in theatre, considering that the majority of troops enroute to or from Iraq are flown on chartered commercial airliners.



Interesting observation: I was speaking with a US Col here at Bagram the other day who told me that because the Clinton Govt failed to make an adequate and timely investment in strategic airlift, the US no longer has what it needs to meet its needs. He specifically described, as you have, a heavy reliance on rental and leased civilian A/C. Maybe we should look into a "subvention" scheme like the British Army used for motor transport in the 1920s and 30s. Cheers.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Nov 2004)

pbi,

that commentary is pretty much right on the money, although the blame cannot be solely put on the shoulders of the former Clinton White House.   Currently the US Army seems to be going in one direction with its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and desire to have a 'medium' division in theatre within 96 hours by strategic airlift, yet the airlift necessary to make such this happen doesn't exist.   Whereas the US Air Force is seemingly going in another opposite direction by putting massive amounts of money into missile defense research as well as fighter programs such as the F-22 while investing relatively small amounts of money into upgrading their strategic airlift capabilities.

Now with that said, the US maintains industry regulations that allow for the use of emergency charter of US airliners in case of war, which was used quite extensively during the deployment of troops into Saudi for Operation Desert Shield in 1990.   For the present troop deployment schedule to Iraq, it seems that the US DOD isn't having much problem chartering the necessary civilian aircraft to do the job.

Personally, I can say that I enjoyed the flight back to the US in the business class cabin aboard a chartered United Airlines 747 rather than the flight over to Kuwait on the troop deck of a US Air Force C-5 (which incidentally the head aboard looks like something NASA designed for the Apollo program during the early 60's).   The fact that we were coming back home from our deployment and my platoon sergeant had smuggled aboard a footlocker of bourbon might also be contributing factors.     ;D


----------



## pbi (19 Nov 2004)

Ahh, yes; business class. I can happily confess to flying that exactly once in 30 years. How the Other Half lives..... Cheers.


----------



## kruger (19 Nov 2004)

120 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III tactical airlift aircraft with 54 more on order and you call that inadequate. That's a fleet the world can only dream about...


----------



## pbi (19 Nov 2004)

If you're banned what are you doing here?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Nov 2004)

He was banned for something else after that post.  Banned members posts still remain in place unless deemed necessary to disappear.


----------



## Acorn (19 Nov 2004)

No remorse for the culture post?

Acorn


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2004)

IMHO, the Canadian Gov't doesn't want to get too involved in Iraq with combat troops. Despite what CSIS, the RCMP and out of country security agencies say about Canada being a haven for terrorist fronts, the government is loath to admit it. They have their heads in the sand and believe if we don't antagonize these various groups abroad, they'll leave us alone here at home. If reprisals started happening here, the government would have to admit what most sane citizens have been saying for a long time.


----------



## oyaguy (22 Nov 2004)

With the benefit of hindsight, staying out of Iraq was a good idea. The appeal for "peacekeepers" {the ironic quotation marks} by Dr. Rajaa Khuzai, a person who was not elected but appointed to her position, is for Canadian consumption. Canadians are rightfully proud of our soldiers and their contributions to peacekeeping. Also it strikes the cord in Canadians, that yes, we do matter, the world needs us. 

Personally I think the one moment Canada mattered in the entire Iraq situation, was our last minute contribution of a resolution to give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum{I think it was 2 months?} to convince the UN that Iraq was disarmed, or face invasion. This resolution wasn't just struck down the US, but also the French. The US didn't like the breathing room that it gave Saddam Hussein, and the French didn't like it because it advocated the use of force. Middle powers like Canada, only matter if there is room for negotiation, and if the bigger powers listen. George W. Bush, and to lesser degree Jacques Chirac, weren't interested in resolving the problem. 

I'm digressing, no Iraq doesn't need peacekeepers; there is no peace to keep. Sending soldiers would just be symbolic, and a show of support. Hardly reasons to ask Canadian soldiers to risk their lives.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Feb 2005)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107558613201&call_pageid=gull

Canadian troops to Iraq?
Bush expected to ask PM for help at upcoming NATO talks

40 soldiers could join team training Iraqi forces in Baghdad


JAMES TRAVERS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST

OTTAWAâ â€U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to ask Prime Minister Paul Martin to send troops to help with the post-war reconstruction of Iraq when they meet later this month.

No decision has been made, but highly placed sources say Canada is preparing to discuss the sensitive issue during the NATO summit meeting in Brussels on Feb 22. 

While the federal government has steadfastly refused to join the so-called coalition of the willing, which helped the U.S. during the Iraq war, the coming appeal is clearly being considered more favourably than in the past.

The Prime Minister's Office would not comment last night.

If Ottawa agrees, an estimated 40 Canadians would join a NATO force of about 300 now helping train Iraqi troops in Baghdad. Their mandate is to stabilize Iraq and help it prepare for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war that since the invasion in March, 2003, has claimed 1,446 American lives.

According to the sources, Canada's new openness to contributing troops is due to changing circumstance. They cite Sunday's surprisingly successful elections in Iraq and the urgent need to bring peace to the region as important considerations.

But the Martin government's reluctance to pay the domestic political price of joining the U.S. continental missile defence program is also said to be a factor shaping federal government thinking. Canada is eager to signal to the Bush administration that Ottawa's refusal to make a decision on the missile shield reflects the realities of minority government, not unwillingness to co-operate with Washington.

Joining the NATO training mission would certainly be controversial. One of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's most popular decisions was to keep Canada out of the war and Martin has worked hard to dispel lingering doubts that he would have made the same choice.

Martin's position is particularly important in Quebec, where major losses helped reduce the Liberals to a minority government in last June's election, and where anti-war as well as anti-Bush sentiment remains particularly high. This government would need compelling reasons to change Canada's policy now. 

According to the sources, the federal government would position any Canadian deployment more as a measured response to Iraq's fledgling government than as support for the U.S. involvement there. At the same time, Ottawa would argue that helping rebuild failed states is central to Martin's still emerging foreign policy.

Apparently coincidentally, Martin stressed that role yesterday during swearing-in ceremonies for Canada's new chief of the defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier. Martin said while the government needs to help countries fight AIDS and improve health care and education, "none of that will be possible in conflict-ridden states unless security is first established."

And then Martin said "the defence of Canada is limited not only to North America but it must be extended around the world."

While providing the security necessary to create or rebuild democratic institutions fits that policy well, the Martin government would face strong objections from at least the Bloc Québécois and NDP.

Any federal policy change on Iraq would also be made more difficult by the refusal of other major NATO members to join the training mission. France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Greece have all forbidden their nationals from taking part in the training effort, even if they are permanently attached to NATO.

Those countries held their positions in December, when, at the urging of then U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell, NATO agreed to increase its Iraq training force to 300 from 60. Unless they reverse course when Bush makes his first foreign trip of his second term, Canada would be seen as breaking ranks.

Buoyed by a less violent Iraq election than expected and with an eye towards eventual withdrawal, Washington is focusing on training Iraqi troops. The U.S. now has about 150,000 soldiers in Iraq but is hoping to reduce that number to about 135,000 in coming weeks.

Additional articles by James Travers


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Feb 2005)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107615996404_26/?hub=TopStories

It would be a most welcome event.


----------



## Glorified Ape (5 Feb 2005)

I don't think we should have any involvement without UN endorsement. Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out.


----------



## DFW2T (5 Feb 2005)

I know some lads in Petawawa that already have their bags packed!


----------



## JasonH (5 Feb 2005)

About time!  If the UN doesn't step up (which they rarely do) then who better then a Canadian?  40 troops might be small but hopefully it'll lead to more!


----------



## DFW2T (5 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I don't think we should have any involvement without UN endorsement. Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out.


Hey Ape!    
      "Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out."

    As an Officer cadet I would think that you would be more privy to foreign policy and WORLD MATTERS .    
    
    I think ( and myself only ) the reason we don't have troops in Iraq already,   is because the Liberal government had the foresight to deploy our troops to Afghanistan (the lesser of two evils)......hence to say,   when called to the plate we ( CANADIANS ) could say   " We couldn't possibly send troops to Iraq.....we are in Afghanistan..........and   we *ARE* doing our part, on the fight against terrorism "

    I was in Kabul on roto 0.   I was a civilian contractor there..... Our boys and girls did an outstanding job............but the "meat"   of the task was   to "win the hearts and minds" Not to combat terrorism"

    I mean no disrespect to any of the brave troops that are there and about to go there . [Jeremy ...God be with you ] (I was a friend of Shorty and Jamie......hero's and mentors in my mind)   The Canadian forces in Afghanistan,   are basically a puppet to the Liberal (ly) endorsed media.

   So my response to you is..............Get with the program......see the big picture.   Whether you like it or not, western civilization is at war.   As an up commping "leader of people"    you should
be instilling "the fight for your brothers " type of attitude......not   the "I don't think that's right"   type attitude.

   Just my opinion,   and mine only


----------



## Agamemnon (5 Feb 2005)

Harper warns Grits about 'deception' on Iraq 
CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is warning the Liberal government will pay a "severe price" if it sends Canadian troops to Iraq.

"I remembered how the prime minister attacked us during the federal election for wanting to spend more on defence,'' Harper told reporters Saturday in Halifax.

"I sat through an election campaign where the prime minister accused me of having secret plans to send troops to Iraq. If it turns out he has secret plans, this has to be one of the biggest election deceptions in history.''

However, Harper didn't rule out supporting such an initiative if he could be convinced it was safe.

He was in Halifax to inspect the fire-damaged HMCS Chicoutimi and to speak to the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative Party's annual meeting.

Harper was responding to a report that Canadian troops may be deployed to Iraq to help with reconstruction if Prime Minister Paul Martin agrees to the anticipated request from U.S. President George Bush.

The two leaders are expected to discuss the issue when they meet later this month in Brussels for a NATO summit meeting, the Toronto Star reported Saturday.

The paper says a small contingent of 40 Canadian troops would be sent abroad, joining another 300 NATO forces -- if Martin agrees.

The news comes days after Bush's state of the union address. In it, he called on his allies for more foreign aid and support for Iraq's new government after a Jan. 30 election that Bush deemed "a great and historic achievement." 

The mandate of the Canadian troops would be to help train Iraqi troops and prepare the violence-ravaged country for the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops.

The Star reports that sources have told it Canada is considering the notion more favourably after last weekend's successful elections in Iraq. 

CTV's Rosemary Thompson told Newsnet the Prime Minister's Office is saying they haven't had an official request yet.

If it did happen and Martin agrees to the request, "it could be fireworks in the House," she says.

"I spoke to two opposition leaders today. They both said that Parliament should be consulted before this happens. They both want a vote in the House of Commons."

The decision would be controversial following the move by former prime minister Jean Chretien to keep Canada out of the war -- a move political analysts said alienated Chretien and Canada from Bush and the United States.

France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Greece banned their nationals from participating in training efforts -- even when NATO increased its training troops from 60 to 300, the Star reported.

Earlier this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Canada stands behind its southern neighbour.

"We share a lot of priorities with the President of the United States," Pettigrew told reporters on Parliament Hill. 

"He can certainly count on Canada to be a steadfast partner in fighting terrorism around the world."

But in October 2004, Martin expressed his hesitance to commit any Canadian troops to Iraq.

"There's a limit to our resources," Martin said at the time.

"And that's why I'm putting the focus right now on Afghanistan, on Haiti.

"Whatever it is that we do, I really want to see us do it in an area that makes a difference," Martin said.

With files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2005)

Martin dithers, still; Harper flip-flops, again; what a pair!  The others?  ... Well, who cares?


----------



## FredDaHead (5 Feb 2005)

Since when do Martin and his Liberal henchmen tell the truth?

I do think that the grits are doomed if they do, doomed if they don't, in this situation. If they send soldiers to Iraq, they have the majority of the House coming down on them about lying about it in the first place, but if they don't, it cools down Canada-US relations, which is kinda bad right now.

Oh well, it's not like the Liberals have any hint of integrity left, right?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Martin dithers, still; Harper flip-flops, again; what a pair! The others? ... Well, who cares?



Yes; whoever is currently writing the Tragedy of Canadian politics would definitely be placed on a mantle beside Sophocles and Euripides (or perhaps Aristophanes or the Bard - is this a Comedy of Errors?)....


----------



## Armymedic (5 Feb 2005)

I think that this move to sent trainers to help train a new Iraqi army would be a good move. After the mistakes the US made with its invasion forces since the fall of Saddam, this may be one of the smarter things they could do, especially after the success so far of a similar program in Afghanistan.

After the fall, the US disolved the Iraqi army, thereby throwing thousands of you soldier out of a job, mistake number two was to fail to disarm them before they all went home.

This effort should make inroads in correcting this.

As for the short sighted comment of Glorified Ape... The war which our gov't did not support is over. The US is still and will be for the forseeable future, our ally. The UN has proven unable to provide any good to anyone in Iraq anymore. The war is over, and the UN has removed itself from Iraq due to the violence that rages there.

Our niche, what we can do, is come in after the defecat has flown and start cleaning up the place. This small contribution will not be the  decisive move, installing peace and security overnight. But if they are able to train 600-800 soldiers into a Bn, then there are that many young men who aren't fighting at night in the streets, and hopefully feeling proud about serving in a new (hopefully) democratic Iraq.


----------



## Agamemnon (5 Feb 2005)

Ok why do we always have to pick up after the americans...first afghanistan...and now iraq...they screwed up let them pay for it...


----------



## karl28 (5 Feb 2005)

I think it would be a good idea if the Americans whant our help we should put our difrences aside and work together.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon your an idiot.  Maybe you should play the gray man for awhile.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (5 Feb 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> This effort should make inroads in correcting this.
> 
> As for the short sighted comment of Glorified Ape... HE IS WHAT HE IS!   :boring:
> 
> ...



An Excellent post!!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Feb 2005)

Guys, don't we already HAVE troops in Iraq?  We certainly did during the period of "ground combat" before the official cessation of hostilities.  Have all our observers been withdrawn?

Isn't this actually a question of "more" Canadian troops to Iraq?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Agamemnon your an idiot.



Funny, that is the same in both French and English - understand that Armageddon?

You've done nothing but post unsubstantiated, inflammatory remarks since you wafted in here.  This is a check-fire warning - if you keep it up the necessary actions will be taken.


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Feb 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> As for the short sighted comment of Glorified Ape... The war which our gov't did not support is over. The US is still and will be for the forseeable future, our ally. The UN has proven unable to provide any good to anyone in Iraq anymore. The war is over, and the UN has removed itself from Iraq due to the violence that rages there.
> 
> Our niche, what we can do, is come in after the defecat has flown and start cleaning up the place. This small contribution will not be the   decisive move, installing peace and security overnight. But if they are able to train 600-800 soldiers into a Bn, then there are that many young men who aren't fighting at night in the streets, and hopefully feeling proud about serving in a new (hopefully) democratic Iraq.



The US can do that on its own - we shouldn't be providing de facto support for what was, no matter how you spice it up, an illegal war by aiding an illegal occupier(or at least PERCEIVED as such by a large portion of the world). Our international reputation is really all we've got to lend us clout in multilateral decisions, and no matter how people may like to poo-poo it, the fact remains that it's relatively respectable and we'd do best to keep it that way. Any overt, active assistance to the US with cleaning up their own mess in Iraq is necessarily going to detract from that reputation, save with the "coalition of the willing" which, when last I checked, consisted of a plethora of developing and undeveloped countries, one mourning ex-hegemon, and one increasingly sociopathic superpower.



			
				DFW2T said:
			
		

> Hey Ape!
> "Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out."
> 
> As an Officer cadet I would think that you would be more privy to foreign policy and WORLD MATTERS .
> ...



Yes, because it certainly is admirable to have unquestioning, unthinking leadership which says "they're white, so we must be on their side". Western civilization is not at war - only a few of its constituents. The US doesn't not constitute "western civilization". I think I am looking at the 'big picture', I just don't see it as a black and white, us and them situation characterized by "with us or against us" type thinking. We're not living in Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" paranoid's fantasy world - things are a little more intricate and nuanced than that. As I stated above, I think more harm would be done to our reputation by assisting the US in cleaning up their mess than it's worth. Openly associating ourselves with the offending party in what has been one of the dirtiest, most divisive conflicts of late is going to do us no good. The only way we could do it and still retain our reputation is if the UN gave the go-ahead since, as of now, there's no other world body capable of lending the credibility the UN can. And yes, I know people will say "the UN sucks, it's useless, it's got no credibility" but that's flying in the face of the active participation of almost every state on earth and that's where the credibility comes from - inclusion and representation breed legitimacy.

We had an obligation under NATO for Afghanistan, we didn't for Iraq and thus have no reason, aside from the "help big brother, maybe we'll get an honourary mention" motivation. The US can manage just fine without a handful of Canadian trainers, so why bother? The effort would undoubtedly serve a largely gestural purpose, the subtext of which will most assuredly stick us in the Bush camp in the eyes of the world - somewhere we don't particularly want to be if we want to be perceived as a respectable mediator, peace builder, and supporter of global governance.


----------



## MILPO (6 Feb 2005)

Hope it doesn't happen.  What are the thoughts on this one?

Harper warns Grits about 'deception' on Iraq 
CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is warning the Liberal government will pay a "severe price" if it sends Canadian troops to Iraq.

"I remembered how the prime minister attacked us during the federal election for wanting to spend more on defence,'' Harper told reporters Saturday in Halifax.

"I sat through an election campaign where the prime minister accused me of having secret plans to send troops to Iraq. If it turns out he has secret plans, this has to be one of the biggest election deceptions in history.''

However, Harper didn't rule out supporting such an initiative if he could be convinced it was safe.

He was in Halifax to inspect the fire-damaged HMCS Chicoutimi and to speak to the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative Party's annual meeting.

Harper was responding to a report that Canadian troops may be deployed to Iraq to help with reconstruction if Prime Minister Paul Martin agrees to the anticipated request from U.S. President George Bush.

The two leaders are expected to discuss the issue when they meet later this month in Brussels for a NATO summit meeting, the Toronto Star reported Saturday.

The paper says a small contingent of 40 Canadian troops would be sent abroad, joining another 300 NATO forces -- if Martin agrees.

The news comes days after Bush's state of the union address. In it, he called on his allies for more foreign aid and support for Iraq's new government after a Jan. 30 election that Bush deemed "a great and historic achievement." 

The mandate of the Canadian troops would be to help train Iraqi troops and prepare the violence-ravaged country for the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops.

The Star reports that sources have told it Canada is considering the notion more favourably after last weekend's successful elections in Iraq. 

CTV's Rosemary Thompson told Newsnet the Prime Minister's Office is saying they haven't had an official request yet.

If it did happen and Martin agrees to the request, "it could be fireworks in the House," she says.

"I spoke to two opposition leaders today. They both said that Parliament should be consulted before this happens. They both want a vote in the House of Commons."

The decision would be controversial following the move by former prime minister Jean Chretien to keep Canada out of the war -- a move political analysts said alienated Chretien and Canada from Bush and the United States.

France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Greece banned their nationals from participating in training efforts -- even when NATO increased its training troops from 60 to 300, the Star reported.

Earlier this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Canada stands behind its southern neighbour.

"We share a lot of priorities with the President of the United States," Pettigrew told reporters on Parliament Hill. 

"He can certainly count on Canada to be a steadfast partner in fighting terrorism around the world."
But in October 2004, Martin expressed his hesitance to commit any Canadian troops to Iraq.
"There's a limit to our resources," Martin said at the time.
"And that's why I'm putting the focus right now on Afghanistan, on Haiti.

"Whatever it is that we do, I really want to see us do it in an area that makes a difference," Martin said.


----------



## civichick (6 Feb 2005)

Question:

Why is Bush going to ask Canadian troops to go to Iraq?

Shouldn't the government that the people of Iraq just elected in the first democratic elections in over 50 years be the ones to do that, if that's what they want?  Otherwise, Iraqi's may see Canada as a puppet of the US.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Feb 2005)

civichick said:
			
		

> Question:
> 
> Why is Bush going to ask Canadian troops to go to Iraq?
> 
> Shouldn't the government that the people of Iraq just elected in the first democratic elections in over 50 years be the ones to do that, if that's what they want?  Otherwise, Iraqi's may see Canada as a puppet of the US.



Who cares what Iraqi's think of us?  Sorry to be blunt, but honestly - they will have worries of their own for the next long while.  Canada is no longer an honest broker, and certainly not in Iraq.  We need to start thinking about helping our allies more - and maybe, just maybe, we'll get some breaks on softwood lumber, cattle, etc.


----------



## ramy (6 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Ok why do we always have to pick up after the americans...first afghanistan...and now iraq...they screwed up let them pay for it...



Pick up after the Americans with regards to Afghanistan ???


We ALL have a stake in a safe democratic Iraq and afghanistan; if civil war erupts in Iraq it will be the new terrorist safe heaven and we dont want that. Its better to fight these dirt bags on their turf not on ours... 

We sit and do nothing it will be no time before they are on our door steps.


----------



## Bo (6 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The US can do that on its own - we shouldn't be providing de facto support for what was, no matter how you spice it up, an illegal war by aiding an illegal occupier(or at least PERCEIVED as such by a large portion of the world). Our international reputation is really all we've got to lend us clout in multilateral decisions, and no matter how people may like to poo-poo it, the fact remains that it's relatively respectable and we'd do best to keep it that way. Any overt, active assistance to the US with cleaning up their own mess in Iraq is necessarily going to detract from that reputation, save with the "coalition of the willing" which, when last I checked, consisted of a plethora of developing and undeveloped countries, one mourning ex-hegemon, and one increasingly sociopathic superpower.
> 
> Yes, because it certainly is admirable to have unquestioning, unthinking leadership which says "they're white, so we must be on their side". Western civilization is not at war - only a few of its constituents. The US doesn't not constitute "western civilization". I think I am looking at the 'big picture', I just don't see it as a black and white, us and them situation characterized by "with us or against us" type thinking. We're not living in Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" paranoid's fantasy world - things are a little more intricate and nuanced than that. As I stated above, I think more harm would be done to our reputation by assisting the US in cleaning up their mess than it's worth. Openly associating ourselves with the offending party in what has been one of the dirtiest, most divisive conflicts of late is going to do us no good. The only way we could do it and still retain our reputation is if the UN gave the go-ahead since, as of now, there's no other world body capable of lending the credibility the UN can. And yes, I know people will say "the UN sucks, it's useless, it's got no credibility" but that's flying in the face of the active participation of almost every state on earth and that's where the credibility comes from - inclusion and representation breed legitimacy.
> 
> We had an obligation under NATO for Afghanistan, we didn't for Iraq and thus have no reason, aside from the "help big brother, maybe we'll get an honourary mention" motivation. The US can manage just fine without a handful of Canadian trainers, so why bother? The effort would undoubtedly serve a largely gestural purpose, the subtext of which will most assuredly stick us in the Bush camp in the eyes of the world - somewhere we don't particularly want to be if we want to be perceived as a respectable mediator, peace builder, and supporter of global governance.




Excellent post Glorified Ape. This is the kind of sound judgement we need in the CF.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The US can do that on its own - we shouldn't be providing de facto support for what was, no matter how you spice it up, an illegal war by aiding an illegal occupier(or at least PERCEIVED as such by a large portion of the world).



Illegal according to what, the UN?   Who defines _casus belli_ for the US - you, Togo and the People's Republic of China?

Anyways, "illegal war" is an old and tired argument - the fact on the ground is that their is just "war" and we have the opportunity to choose what side of the fence we will come down.



> Our international reputation is really all we've got to lend us clout in multilateral decisions, and no matter how people may like to poo-poo it, the fact remains that it's relatively respectable and we'd do best to keep it that way.



Reputation...hah.   Fat lot that does us when the rest of the world realises that we can't or won't act on our convictions.   Talk to some of the guys here who've had to haggle with Balkan Warlords, you'll see where Canada's reputation gets you - as General Mackenzie figured it out, you got to be the baddest sonuvabitch on the block. 



> Any overt, active assistance to the US with cleaning up their own mess in Iraq is necessarily going to detract from that reputation,



That's a good attitude - *"Leave the US to handle its own affairs, hopefully having Iraq regress into anarchy or fundamentalism so that the Yankees learn a lesson.   Then, when Western influence and capability has sufficiently diminished in the Region, we can all rely on our reputation to save us from the next terrorist attack...."*

It is in our interest to see that the US succeeds in stabilizing Iraq so that we don't end up with further instability in the region, so we ignore the situation to our own peril.



> save with the "coalition of the willing" which, when last I checked, consisted of a plethora of developing and undeveloped countries, one mourning ex-hegemon, and one increasingly sociopathic superpower.



There's that arrogant anti-Americanism I've come to know and love.   And who exactly is the "coalition of the unwilling"?   Charlemagne (Germany and France) playing power politics, Russia protecting a key source of income, and Red China looking to poke its rival in the eye?



> Yes, because it certainly is admirable to have unquestioning, unthinking leadership which says "they're white, so we must be on their side". Western civilization is not at war - only a few of its constituents. The US doesn't not constitute "western civilization". I think I am looking at the 'big picture', I just don't see it as a black and white, us and them situation characterized by "with us or against us" type thinking. We're not living in Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" paranoid's fantasy world - things are a little more intricate and nuanced than that. As I stated above, I think more harm would be done to our reputation by assisting the US in cleaning up their mess than it's worth. Openly associating ourselves with the offending party in what has been one of the dirtiest, most divisive conflicts of late is going to do us no good. The only way we could do it and still retain our reputation is if the UN gave the go-ahead since, as of now, there's no other world body capable of lending the credibility the UN can. And yes, I know people will say "the UN sucks, it's useless, it's got no credibility" but that's flying in the face of the active participation of almost every state on earth and that's where the credibility comes from - inclusion and representation breed legitimacy.
> 
> We had an obligation under NATO for Afghanistan, we didn't for Iraq and thus have no reason, aside from the "help big brother, maybe we'll get an honourary mention" motivation. The US can manage just fine without a handful of Canadian trainers, so why bother? The effort would undoubtedly serve a largely gestural purpose, the subtext of which will most assuredly stick us in the Bush camp in the eyes of the world - somewhere we don't particularly want to be if we want to be perceived as a respectable mediator, peace builder, and supporter of global governance.



That's seeing the situation from Western eyes.   Canada is in Afghanistan.   As far as fundamentalist terrorists are concerned, we are invaders of _Dar-al-Islam_ and are in the opposing camp.   Going into Iraq, or even supporting the Americans politically, will not alter our reputation to the enemy one bit.

You argue against supporting the US in Iraq on the grounds that it is only an effort to curry favour with the American Hegemon.   

However, in order to do this, you argue for some sort of "reputation" that is based off of currying favour with the interests of France, Germany, Russia - all who clearly have their own thoughts and motives against an assertive US foreign policy.  Furthermore, you hinge the legitimacy of our reputation on some idealistic fawning over the United Nations, which has really done a bang-up in the last couple decades.  At the rate they're going, we can expect to see the Sudan as the new head of the Human Rights committee.

Your argument is no better or moral then the one to support the Americans and, as par for the course, seems to be driven more by some sort of personal dislike of the American administration rather then any realistic appreciation of the National Interest of Canada.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Feb 2005)

Quote from Bo,
_Excellent post Glorified Ape. This is the kind of sound judgement we need in the CF_.

...alright now we can add Mcgill to the mix of misguided studentology.........you guys are going to hate graduating and then finding out its a 
big bad world out there.


----------



## Agamemnon (6 Feb 2005)

CFL ,you might want to shut your mouth. 

And no its not the same in french or english   ;D hahaha

The Iraq war is unjustified regardless of Saddams capture..at least before the US armed forces invaded, people went to school etc...you know that the US armed force closed down all the schools because the teachers were in the baath party?!? if you were not in the baath party you were dead.

That war is for the oil in Iraq...The US invaded a sovreign nation...to take their oil away...their life blood.


Oh you think sending 40 troops if to" help" your wrong...their are economic goals behind that...Mr.Bush and Mr.Martin agree to give Canada reconstructing contracts or we wouldint send a janitor over there.

so once again they under estimated their enemy.They posed no threat to the US.Let them finish what they started.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Feb 2005)

Quote,
_if you were not in the baath party you were dead._
...and thats good enough reason for war for me....NEXT?

....and I have had it with you, lad,...I  totally disagree with several others[hi, sigpig/ape ] but at least they bring some form of articulate arguement with them and not the kife you spout.You have been warned a few times now so here is the first step...

..and as for the Sea-King report, I'm calling BS on that.


----------



## Agamemnon (6 Feb 2005)

mah what report?

Its part of a class i have,having to write a 17 page opinion.

2nd...ok ill shut up...




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"band de bloke"


----------



## gnplummer421 (6 Feb 2005)

Greetings,

After reading all these replies one at a time I can only say.....phew hot topic! A lot of detailed analysis and opinions on this subject. I guess it comes down to this; The politicians will decide right or wrong whether to send troops. If ordered to go, we will send our best, and as usual, they will do an outstanding job and gain the respect of our military allies from across the globe. With regards to UN and other nations refusing to help? They are not neighbours to the U.S., and we are. Do we really want to be lumped in with these other groups anyway?  Me personally, I have always supported the American cause with regards to global terrorism, and therefore support any help we can offer as Canadians.

Thanks.


----------



## Armymedic (6 Feb 2005)

If Canada wants to be the middle power of influence that punches above its weight, and carve a niche for itself in this century, then we need to get aboard something. The 20th century  notion of us being the world peacekeepers is now dead, and the Cdn public is realizing this.

The role of country rebuilder, with our reputations in the CF, election observers, police etc, would be a good place for us to explore.

No matter if the war which destroyed the country was just or unjust, the ongoing international security demands that nation rebuilding in conflict areas be done right the first time, as to ensure the instability does not continue.

We're well started on this road in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Palestine, why not try in Iraq as well?


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon, looking at your bare bones profile it is fairly obvious you have never served a day in the Forces. You mention that you have to write a paper as part of a class, wow, another armchair general.
You tell CFL, a serving member to shut his mouth, well I've got something for you. Please **** off at your earliest convenience :threat:. You are a sanctimonious piece of crap! :rage:
To the moderators of this site, I apologize for my language but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade!

MOD EDIT: language?...what language?...deleted by mod.


----------



## Agamemnon (6 Feb 2005)

Well...once again your right...arm chair general...reguardless thats way above you...and well a rank you will never achieve.

well since the mods wont bother bad language...i'm sure they wont bother with me...

your reply is after the fact and i stoped...all your doing is starting up a flame...

and also how the mods arent doing their job...see after this post they will only warn me of beign otu of line..when ou started this flame...

so shut up and move on.


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Illegal according to what, the UN?   Who defines _casus belli_ for the US - you, Togo and the People's Republic of China?
> 
> Anyways, "illegal war" is an old and tired argument - the fact on the ground is that their is just "war" and we have the opportunity to choose what side of the fence we will come down.



The whole proscription against aggressive war stems back to the Treaty of Westphalia, the UN just reiterated it. It was that proscription that sent us into Kuwait - everyone knew aggressive war is dangerous, illegal, and just cause for intervention. In fact, along with genocide it's one of the few justifications for intervention. Now, we can dispense with the peremptory norms we've had for quite some time and revert back to some Hobbesian state of nature where the sole decider of right is might but that runs somewhat counter to the whole democratic principle of the rule of law. The system's not anywhere near perfect but crapping all over it every chance we get simply because playing by the rules doesn't favour our preferences at the time isn't going to help it any. 



> Reputation...hah.   Fat lot that does us when the rest of the world realises that we can't or won't act on our convictions.   Talk to some of the guys here who've had to haggle with Balkan Warlords, you'll see where Canada's reputation gets you - as General Mackenzie figured it out, you got to be the baddest sonuvabitch on the block.



That approach isn't working to well for the US right now, the way I see it. Sure, Iraq is their patsy now but the majority of their former allies are now looking for new ways to circumvent their inclusion and the majority of the earth seems disgusted with their conduct. Military power is mattering less and less these days, imo. The old days of clubbing your neighbour (or anyone) over the head because you didn't like them or wanted something they had are gone. Nowadays, clubbing anyone over the head, without sufficient cause, only earns you a hefty debt, compromised trade levels, and the reputation for being an unreasonable psycopath. 



> That's a good attitude - *"Leave the US to handle its own affairs, hopefully having Iraq regress into anarchy or fundamentalism so that the Yankees learn a lesson.   Then, when Western influence and capability has sufficiently diminished in the Region, we can all rely on our reputation to save us from the next terrorist attack...."*
> 
> It is in our interest to see that the US succeeds in stabilizing Iraq so that we don't end up with further instability in the region, so we ignore the situation to our own peril.



For the sake of the Iraqi people, I don't hope that Iraq descends into chaos. As for terrorist attacks, I'd say we probably have more of a terror problem now than before Iraq. There was no terror link to Iraq, no matter how hard the administration tried to find/manufacture one. All that was achieved, terror wise, by invading Iraq was to give terrorist organizations all that much more to recruit with. 



> There's that arrogant anti-Americanism I've come to know and love.   And who exactly is the "coalition of the unwilling"?   Charlemagne (Germany and France) playing power politics, Russia protecting a key source of income, and Red China looking to poke its rival in the eye?



And countless other European, Asian, South American, Middle Eastern, etc. countries. The "willing" are in the minority, the severe minority. 



> That's seeing the situation from Western eyes.   Canada is in Afghanistan.   As far as fundamentalist terrorists are concerned, we are invaders of _Dar-al-Islam_ and are in the opposing camp.   Going into Iraq, or even supporting the Americans politically, will not alter our reputation to the enemy one bit.



I don't care what the terrorists think of us - that's not going to be changed, you're right. I'm not concerned with how terrorists perceive our alliances/reputation, I'm more concerned with the other countries in the world, meaning the majority, that don't back this war or the neo-colonial crusade it represents. The US is our ally on many things, that doesn't mean we have to be allies on everything. 



> You argue against supporting the US in Iraq on the grounds that it is only an effort to curry favour with the American Hegemon.



No, I attribute that as the effect it will have. My opposition is that it will damage us with little or no benefit. The US will trade with us regardless of our aid or lack thereof. 



> However, in order to do this, you argue for some sort of "reputation" that is based off of currying favour with the interests of France, Germany, Russia - all who clearly have their own thoughts and motives against an assertive US foreign policy.   Furthermore, you hinge the legitimacy of our reputation on some idealistic fawning over the United Nations, which has really done a bang-up in the last couple decades.   At the rate they're going, we can expect to see the Sudan as the new head of the Human Rights committee.



Our reputation isn't based on currying favour with anyone, it's based on our conduct. We've been an honest broker many times and are recognized as a largely peaceful, progressive participant in world affairs. That's not to say we won't go to war when it's necessary and up until now our war record is pretty good. ANY attempts to help the US in Iraq without UN approval will, in the eyes of most, put us in Bush's camp and thus dirty us in future relations with the "unwilling" states (read: the majority of the world). The US is decreasing in its importance and Iraq has only sped this up as Bush pushed a "with us or against us" rift, only to find the majority of the Earth to be standing on the other side. 50 years ago it would have been the opposite. We should keep this in mind - our relations with the rest of the world, in future, will be more important than tying ourselves, in everything, to the US. Our trade relationship is here to stay - its codification in NAFTA and the WTO ensures the US is severely limited in its ability to mess with it. It tried it with Europe, got slapped with ultra-heavy penalties by the WTO, and was forced to reconcile at a loss. 



> Your argument is no better or moral then the one to support the Americans and, as par for the course, seems to be driven more by some sort of personal dislike of the American administration rather then any realistic appreciation of the National Interest of Canada.



My argument isn't driven by any dislike for the US, it's driven by my belief that it's more important to play a leading role in developing an effective system of global governance than a background supporting role in what I believe is a doomed attempt to refurbish declining hegemony. Do I support the war in Iraq - no. Not because it's the US fighting it but because I believe it runs counter to the interests of Canada and the world. You're right - the UN has serious issues and I agree wholeheartedly that it needs reform. I don't believe actively undermining it and violating the most fundamental principles of international diplomacy is going to do it, us, or anyone else any good. Narrow, heavy handed considerations of "national interest" are what have motivated the worst wars and atrocities in human history. How are we ever going to improve things if everyone just keeps on functioning solely in their own interest with no consideration of the effects on anyone else? We can achieve our national interests 99.999999% of the time without having to attack, invade, or ally ourselves with those who do. 
That's the whole point of international institutions - to facilitate communication and cooperation with a regimen of incentives and penalties, avoiding the costly, inefficient, and counter-productive conflicts that have plagued us since time immemorial. 



			
				Bo said:
			
		

> Excellent post Glorified Ape. This is the kind of sound judgement we need in the CF.



Thanks, although I think the majority here would disagree with you.   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape, I've read your reply and I could attempt a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'm not going to - all it will do is extend the exasperating tit-for-tat spiel that has been running on this forum for years now.   Rather, I'm going to offer an observation and a bit of a challenge.

As I read your post, I pick up a tone of argument through your use of terms like "sociopathic" and "sustaining hegemonic status" that seems to indicate that you believe that the US is making a desperate bid to shore up its status as Global Superpower.   As well, you constantly appeal to notions of "consensus" and "global governance" which, although sounding nice and fluffy, have never been a serious factor in the conduct of nations since the Peace of Westphalia (even the Concert of Europe was fraught with intrigue, interest, and revolution).   Hell, none of the Allies could even gather a consensus on how to defeat Fascism in WWII and what to do when that was done - I could see the an internet thread in 1945 debating Churchill's staunch realism vs. Roosevelt's hopeful idealism (which was manipulated by Stalin's totalitarian paranoia).

I will assert that Iraq must be viewed agianst the general backdrop of US involvement in the Middle East.   It, like the "War on Terror", must be viewed as a whole.   I do not believe Iraq is merely an independant effort by the United States to grab power and prop up its Hegemonic status; this status was assured when the Taman Guards chose to not crush the Muscovites marching in the streets and I contend that American strength, regardless of Iraq, will be unrivaled for at least the next few decades - the preponderance in all facets of strength (military, economic, cultural, digital) point to this.   

Ratherl, I believe America (along with its Allies) have gone into Iraq to decisively engaging themselves in the Middle East for the same reason they decisively engaged themselves in Europe following WWII - it was in their interest (and the interest of other liberal democracies) to curb the rise of ideological terrorism, only now Bolshevism has been replaced with xenophobic Fundamentalism which, since the withdrawl of the Soviets from the Middle East, is feeding off of people who live in squalor and destitution under tin-pot regimes.  Iraq, like Guadalcanal or North Africa, is merely one set of battles in a grand campaign to deal with a world-view that is fundamentally opposed to the very principles that we have thrived under.

To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, "States don't have friends, they have interests".   Canada should not occupy itself with seeking "friends" through its "reputation"; this will only serve to have our "Soft Power" crumble when others choose to serve their interest over "friendship" with us.   I believe it is in our interest to strategically commit ourselves to the Middle East - not through back room deals and political back-scratching as the French, Russians, and Chinese have been prone to do, but rather along with the Americans and British to effect decisive change in behaviours and attitudes.   Whether this means mere political support or a small troop commitment is not important, only that we recognize that we must exercise our influence at the center of Dar-al-Islam lest Western influence in the area takes a dramatic turn for the worse and we risk being held for ransom by politically hostile actors.

Here is my outlook on the American effort in Iraq that I have pasted from another forum.   Read it if you want.   Hopefully, it may provide a different approach to interpreting events in the Middle East.   If you still wish to argue rabid and sociopathic imperialism, then go for it - but the disjointed arguments for this approach (oil, Bush, racism, failing economy) don't seem to add up.



> With regards to Iraq, I think going in was a good strategy.   The fundamental problems confronting the US after Sept 11 was a whole gamut of issues arising out of an area that is inherently unstable, unfriendly and occupying a key piece of geopolitical real-estate.   As such, America (and the rest of us, whether we like it or not) could not afford not to engage itself in the Middle East in an assertive manner for two reasons:
> 
> 1) The preponderant importance of petroleum in sustaining our economic well-being.   If the strength of America (and the West) was to fade in the eyes of Jihadis, fundamentalists, tin-pot dictators, and slippery Saudi princes, then there was a real risk of losing the "cooperative" influence that the West possessed in the region.   Whether we like it or not, going to war for oil is necessary - if someone wishes to leave the well-being of close to a billion people in the hands of dictators and/or mullahs, then they're not thinking with their head.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Feb 2005)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107703180215_6?hub=topstories

No plan yet to deploy troops to Iraq: Pettigrew 
CTV.ca News Staff

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew says Canada has no intention to send troops to Iraq.

His response came after reports that Prime Minister Paul Martin will be asked by U.S. President George Bush to deploy 40 Canadian troops to help with reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

The two leaders are expected to discuss the matter at this month's NATO summit in Belgium.

"We are already contributing to the training of Iraqi police forces here in Jordan, so we will see what the NATO summit leads to. Our reconstruction contribution will be significant," Pettigrew told CTV's Question Period from Amman, Jordan.

He said he was not ruling out sending more troops to help with the reconstruction efforts outside of the violence-ravaged country.

He maintained that Martin has not strayed from his original position on keeping Canadian forces out of Iraq.

"Prime Minister Martin has always been very clear that our contribution to the reconstruction of Iraq would not bring boots to the ground," he said.

Both Conservative and NDP leaders expressed their reservations about sending Canadian troops to Iraq.

"This was an invasion that Canadians opposed," NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

Layton told CTV's Rosemary Thompson that the move would be a dangerous one, and a reversal of position on the part of Prime Minister Paul Martin.

On Saturday Conservative Stephen Harper warned that the Liberal government will pay a "severe price" if it sends Canadian troops to Iraq.

"I remembered how the prime minister attacked us during the federal election for wanting to spend more on defence," Harper told reporters in Halifax.

"I sat through an election campaign where the prime minister accused me of having secret plans to send troops to Iraq. If it turns out he has secret plans, this has to be one of the biggest election deceptions in history."

However, Harper didn't rule out supporting such an initiative if he could be convinced it was safe.

The Toronto Star reported Saturday that a small contingent of 40 Canadian troops would be sent abroad, joining another 300 NATO forces -- if Martin agrees.

The news came days after Bush's state of the union address. 

In it, he called on his allies for more foreign aid and support for Iraq's new government after a Jan. 30 election that Bush deemed "a great and historic achievement." 

The mandate of the Canadian troops would be to help train Iraqi troops and prepare the violence-ravaged country for the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops.

The Star reports that sources have told it Canada is considering the notion more favourably after last weekend's successful elections in Iraq. 

The Prime Minister's Office told CTV they haven't had an official request yet.

If it did happen and Martin agrees to the request, "it could be fireworks in the House," Thompson reported.

"I spoke to two opposition leaders today. They both said that Parliament should be consulted before this happens. They both want a vote in the House of Commons."

The decision would be controversial following the move by former prime minister Jean Chretien to keep Canada out of the war -- a move political analysts said alienated Chretien and Canada from Bush and the United States.

France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Greece banned their nationals from participating in training efforts -- even when NATO increased its training troops from 60 to 300, the Star reported.

Earlier this week, Pettigrew said Canada stands behind its southern neighbour.

"We share a lot of priorities with the President of the United States," Pettigrew told reporters on Parliament Hill. 

"He can certainly count on Canada to be a steadfast partner in fighting terrorism around the world."

But in October 2004, Martin expressed his hesitance to commit any Canadian troops to Iraq.

"There's a limit to our resources," Martin said at the time.

"And that's why I'm putting the focus right now on Afghanistan, on Haiti.

"Whatever it is that we do, I really want to see us do it in an area that makes a difference," Martin said.

With files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Our reputation isn't based on currying favour with anyone, it's based on our conduct. We've been an honest broker many times and are recognized as a largely peaceful, progressive participant in world affairs. That's not to say we won't go to war when it's necessary and up until now our war record is pretty good. ANY attempts to help the US in Iraq without UN approval will, in the eyes of most, put us in Bush's camp and thus dirty us in future relations with the "unwilling" states (read: the majority of the world). The US is decreasing in its importance and Iraq has only sped this up as Bush pushed a "with us or against us" rift, only to find the majority of the Earth to be standing on the other side. 50 years ago it would have been the opposite. We should keep this in mind - our relations with the rest of the world, in future, will be more important than tying ourselves, in everything, to the US. Our trade relationship is here to stay - its codification in NAFTA and the WTO ensures the US is severely limited in its ability to mess with it. It tried it with Europe, got slapped with ultra-heavy penalties by the WTO, and was forced to reconcile at a loss.



Ok, I'm not going to find rebuttals for every siingle thing you posted because frankly, it'd take too long and we'll just end up going full-circle.

As for this argument (the one I quoted), I think the softwood and beef incidents have showed how little the US care about the WTO and other organisations like it. They know we can't just cut off trade with them if we get pissed, because they're our only major trade partner. We cut them off, WE go into recession, not them. It'd hit them, but it wouldn't have nearly as much of an effect on them as it would on us.

However, I do agree that going along might "dirty us in future relations with the 'unwilling' states," but what can ya do? Like most politic decisions, this will be motivated by our economy.

Oh well, what can ya do? Martin and his cronies will just cheat again...


----------



## McG (7 Feb 2005)

> Pettigrew appears to rule out troops for Iraq
> By BRIAN LAGHI
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> 07 Feb 05
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050207.wxtrane0207/BNStory/National/


----------



## Franko (7 Feb 2005)

Just A Hick said:
			
		

> Ive heard, they calling off all major tours / operations for a wile. Once they boys get back from kabul.



Source please.

Regards


----------



## Andyboy (7 Feb 2005)

I'm not sure that I'm surprised at some of the comments here but I continue to be disappointed to hear the same old thing again and again by a community that should know better. To me the choice is clear: help our Allies free a people or stick it to our Allies to try to prove a point. How incredibly petty some of you latter. It makes me sad. I would have thought that the example our grandparents set for us in the liberation of Europe would have made a greater impression today's generation. Shame on some of you for breaking the faith


In Flanders Fields
by John McCrae (1872 - 1918)

In Flanders' fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place: and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below,

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders' fields.

*Take up our quarrel with the foe;
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be your to hold it high,
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders' fields*


----------



## Blakey (7 Feb 2005)

Hmmm, did I know somthing at the time....? Sounds like alot of option #5 here..... :
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25087.0.html


----------



## civichick (8 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Who cares what Iraqi's think of us?   Sorry to be blunt, but honestly - they will have worries of their own for the next long while.   Canada is no longer an honest broker, and certainly not in Iraq.   We need to start thinking about helping our allies more - and maybe, just maybe, we'll get some breaks on softwood lumber, cattle, etc.



Yikes.  Well, actually, I care about what Iraqi's think of us, but that wasn't really my question. I was just looking for a military opinion on the events to get a better view of things.  It's definitely important to help our allies, but I don't think that things are so economically bleak here that we have to sell our souls in order to trade some lumber. Really, is that what you joined up for? 

If you're not interested in outside views or questions I'm cool with that and I'll move along and form my opinions in other ways.


----------



## Blakey (8 Feb 2005)

civichick said:
			
		

> is that what you joined up for?



I joined up to help people, the Iraqi's need help, end quote, period.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (8 Feb 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> I joined up to help people, the Iraqi's need help, end quote, period.



Have to agree with you there.


----------



## civichick (9 Feb 2005)

Thanks.  Seriously, it's good to hear.  I really do appreciate anyone who's willing to put themselves in harms way to protect the rest of us.  Military, cops, fire fighters, etc.  You're also a HUGE part of the reason Canadians get respected in most parts of the world.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (9 Feb 2005)

THe problem is if you start to pick and choose your friends in the world you tend to make enemies quicker from those who you shun.  By not carring what the world thinks you tend to come off (much like the USA) as being arrogant and not a team player.

Would it be a bad thing for us to be in IRAQ no not under a UN or even a NATO deal but if we go in under the US we would be taking a step backwards.  We were not in with them intially and now it would be seen as us trying to save face.


----------



## sigpig (9 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I  totally disagree with several others[hi, sigpig/ape ] but at least they bring some form of articulate arguement with them and not the kife you spout.



Hi Bruce!!!     I hadn't checked out this thread before and look what I missed. An actual mention by name and what I will take for a compliment.

BTW I mentioned you by name in a post I did about 15 minutes before seeing this one.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape, I've read your reply and I could attempt a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'm not going to - all it will do is extend the exasperating tit-for-tat spiel that has been running on this forum for years now.   Rather, I'm going to offer an observation and a bit of a challenge.
> 
> As I read your post, I pick up a tone of argument through your use of terms like "sociopathic" and "sustaining hegemonic status" that seems to indicate that you believe that the US is making a desperate bid to shore up its status as Global Superpower.   As well, you constantly appeal to notions of "consensus" and "global governance" which, although sounding nice and fluffy, have never been a serious factor in the conduct of nations since the Peace of Westphalia (even the Concert of Europe was fraught with intrigue, interest, and revolution).   Hell, none of the Allies could even gather a consensus on how to defeat Fascism in WWII and what to do when that was done - I could see the an internet thread in 1945 debating Churchill's staunch realism vs. Roosevelt's hopeful idealism (which was manipulated by Stalin's totalitarian paranoia).
> 
> ...



Nor do the arguments proposed for this war - especially in the absence of the mantra chanted by the administration in the lead up: WMD. Oops, none there. Funny how the whole "freedom/liberty" stuff didn't get a mention until the whole WMD thing started looking less and less likely. I think that's probably because it was the most ridiculous justification available but excuses were getting scarce. Anyway, I digress. 

As for national interests and "no friends", I don't disagree - friends are countries with whom our interests converge. That doesn't mean we have to tag along on every misadventure our "friends" get into. We're not losing anything by not being in Iraq or helping the US - they'll trade with us as they always have and we'll both profit off of it. Canada's national interests are seeing international law and governance (yes, it exists, not just a lofty principle - the WTO, IMF, World Bank, UN, etc. do it) maintained, improved, and promoted - they enable us to make ourselves felt far beyond our basic, realpolitik capabilities. Tying on to a foreign policy blunder by an ally simply because we're economically interdependent doesn't serve that end and thus doesn't serve our interests. So we tag along with the US and what do we gain? A pat on the back and recognition from big brother (oh joy), some place to sink token groups of troops for the next few years, and maybe some preferential treatment for Canadian contractors? Meanwhile, we come out looking like a poorly dressed hooker without about as much dignity, depravity by association, and the status quo is maintained - we advance nothing in capability or relations except to taint our relations with all our other, increasingly important,"friends" with whom our interests converge. 

American strength is based on economics and their military. Economically, Asia and Europe are starting to catch up and military strength is mattering less and less as the cost - both political and economic - of war has gotten to the point where it far outweighs the benefits. One only has to look at the gigantic US debt accrued as a result of Iraq. The US will probably have preponderance in military power for a very long time, it just won't matter nearly as much as it did, nor does it even today. I think we've already recognized this, the important thing is keeping a foreign policy that reflects it - that means advancing our ability to cooperate and trade while keeping military ventures confined to the necessary. 



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ....and I have had it with you, lad,...I   totally disagree with several others[hi, sigpig/ape ] but at least they bring some form of articulate arguement with them and not the kife you spout.



I love you too.   :-*


----------



## Wizard of OZ (9 Feb 2005)

Funny how you can get pounded on for offering an opinion.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Feb 2005)

Did you get "pounded on", Wizard?

People who don't like the rules, moderation, or atmosphere here can:

a) leave

b) address their concerns with the owner, or even the Moderator in question, via PM

Little pouty remarks in the forum aren't really contributing much, are they?


Not sure where all this sense of entitlement and indignation are coming from lately, but this is a private forum - we are all here only at the whim of Mr. Bobbitt


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Funny how you can get pounded on for offering an opinion.



Who pounded anyone?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2005)

Well, I intended to give this a pass, but ... this from Marcus Gee in today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050209/COGEE09/TPColumnists/



> Heck no, we won't go -- we're scared
> 
> By MARCUS GEE
> Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - Page A17
> ...



Emphasis added


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Feb 2005)

Re: The Canadian Forces going to Iraq? 
 « Reply #125 on: Yesterday at 15:57:06  »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Blakey on Yesterday at 07:36:00
I joined up to help people, the Iraqi's need help, end quote, period.


Have to agree with you there.


Not only that, but the american and british troops down there as well.Those guys are no different than we are, and we're supposed to be allies.Its obvious the US is into a big mess now, and I dunno about anyone else but im growing weary of seeing guys my age getting shot up on a daily basis.The reasons for the war are now irrellevant.To me, the only thing that matters now is ending this and getting as many good troops out of Iraq alive and back to their families as possible.

If the PM said tomorrow we were going, I would not oppose.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Nor do the arguments proposed for this war - especially in the absence of the mantra chanted by the administration in the lead up: WMD. Oops, none there. Funny how the whole "freedom/liberty" stuff didn't get a mention until the whole WMD thing started looking less and less likely. I think that's probably because it was the most ridiculous justification available but excuses were getting scarce. Anyway, I digress.



As I stated in my post, the arguments for Iraq are largely irrelevant.   The fact is that Saddam was a bad guy and was in the General Campaign area, so he was next in line.   If you don't believe that Iraq, Afghanistan, and anything else down the pipeline are part of a larger US Strategy that was kicked into high-gear following 9/11 (which I interpreted in my post) then I guess you and I can agree that we disagree on the entire situation of the current Middle East scenario, Iraq included.



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> American strength is based on economics and their military.



I don't think I'll buy that.   Western power is also measured in terms of freedom, culture, opportunity and a strong civil society and America, as the current "top-dog", is the beacon for Western characteristics.   Why do you think that people are lined up to immigrate to the United States (and other Western destinations) rather then to sunny Kazakhstan, Syria, Congo, or Myanmar?

Why do you think that people in Iran, despite government crack-down, really do want to break the rules to listen to Western Music, put up posters of Western Icons, and drink Coca-Cola.

Why do you think the Standard of Living and the quality of Life in the West has generally been the best in the history of civilization?

Why do you think we can sit here and chat about all things political and disagree on policies and administration while in the PRC access to internet (along with other facets of civil society) is limited by government providers and their is strong surveillance and censorship on the average Joe's ability to express his ideas.

No, Western (and by extention, American) strength is based on principles much more enduring then simply money and tanks.   If anything, the money and tanks stem from these qualities, as the Soviets found out to their demise.

(PS - I've obviously rescinded my "ignore politics" pledge - oh well.   However, as the site Owner has underlined, there will be no more denigrating ANYONE'S argument based upon age/rank/position/favorite chocolate bar.)


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Feb 2005)

Infanteer makes a convincing argument, and Rusty that was also a good article.

That article made alot of good points, particularly how Paul Martin wants to take a more active role in nation building and upholding democracy worldwide... who else needs it more than Iraq now  :-\


----------



## chaos75 (10 Feb 2005)

Besides being the biggest trading partner of the US, and allies when it comes to continental defense, when has Canada ever gone to war with the US before??   In both World Wars we went as part of the commenwealth to defend the interests and policies of England (I believe the Americans showed up late both times).   In Korea we went under the banner of the UN, as well as Desert Storm under a UN sanctioned conflict.   We skipped Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq.   We went to Afghanistan along with our allies in the defense of North America.   Iraq had nothing to do with the security of this country, which is why we stayed out of it in the first place.   We are supporting the 'real' war on terror which was Al Qaeda and their Taliban sympathisers in Afghanistan.   

While Iraq's stability is important, until the mission in its entirety is turned over to the UN, Canada should remain where it is, supporting the peaceful rebuilding of Afghanistan.   We have neither the resources nor the public inclination to become involved in Iraq.   While there is some who say it is only 40 troops, and it would help, that is a joke.   If it is not clear to everyone that our 40 troops would only be used as a propaganda tool for the US, regardless of the no doubt professional and outstanding work they would do, there is something wrong.   Canada has taken sides throughout our history, and we should continue to do so as the country as a majority sees fit.   

Like countless others I joined as well to help, but first and foremost I joined to serve this great country.   That is why no matter what our personal opinions are, the government makes the decisions, not us.   Just my .02 into the mix.


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I stated in my post, the arguments for Iraq are largely irrelevant.   The fact is that Saddam was a bad guy and was in the General Campaign area, so he was next in line.   If you don't believe that Iraq, Afghanistan, and anything else down the pipeline are part of a larger US Strategy that was kicked into high-gear following 9/11 (which I interpreted in my post) then I guess you and I can agree that we disagree on the entire situation of the current Middle East scenario, Iraq included.
> 
> I don't think I'll buy that.   Western power is also measured in terms of freedom, culture, opportunity and a strong civil society and America, as the current "top-dog", is the beacon for Western characteristics.   Why do you think that people are lined up to immigrate to the United States (and other Western destinations) rather then to sunny Kazakhstan, Syria, Congo, or Myanmar?
> 
> ...



The western world extends beyond the US. Canada, the UK, and a score of other countries are quite open, "free" societies but none have had the success of the US. The US' (relatively) unhindered capitalism, combined with their advantageous outcomes and position in WWI and II are what truly established them as THE superpower, militarily and economically. Consumer culture may be a means of securing economic success and growth and, yes, of spreading US culture but they had their superpower status long before the explosion of US MTV "culture" around the world. They achieved it through the military and economic decline of the European powers during and after both World Wars. That military and economic decline, combined with US military and economic expansion, is what established the US as a superpower.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Feb 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Infanteer makes a convincing argument, and Rusty that was also a good article.
> 
> That article made alot of good points, particularly how Paul Martin wants to take a more active role in nation building and upholding democracy worldwide... who else needs it more than Iraq now   :-\



I think you will see the CF in the SUDAN before you see them in Iraq for the very reason, it would be a political nightmare for the liberals to send troops to Iraq after the election bashing of the conservatives and their "secret agenda" to send the troops there with Bush and Blair's army.  

I agree the PM wants to make it a more active role but i think Iraq is out of the question at least until next year(or when it stabalizes a little bit) we can send a rebuilding team in with both civilian and military personal.


----------



## q_1966 (10 Feb 2005)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1336682/posts

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-5/SI-88-129/148094.ht

Any Comments?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Feb 2005)

The first link is old news to which the PM has already responded to by saying no troops in Iraq.  Jordan maybe but not Iraq.

The second link was not working when i tried maybe my computer did not like it but i could not read it at all.


----------



## q_1966 (16 Feb 2005)

Hmm...they must of pulled it, because it pretty much ok'd all NCM's & Officers of Reg & Reserve Force going to Iraq under (what I think) is the disguise of NATO commitments.


----------



## Stymiest (19 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape, I've read your reply and I could attempt a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'm not going to - all it will do is extend the exasperating tit-for-tat spiel that has been running on this forum for years now.   Rather, I'm going to offer an observation and a bit of a challenge.
> 
> As I read your post, I pick up a tone of argument through your use of terms like "sociopathic" and "sustaining hegemonic status" that seems to indicate that you believe that the US is making a desperate bid to shore up its status as Global Superpower.   As well, you constantly appeal to notions of "consensus" and "global governance" which, although sounding nice and fluffy, have never been a serious factor in the conduct of nations since the Peace of Westphalia (even the Concert of Europe was fraught with intrigue, interest, and revolution).   heck, none of the Allies could even gather a consensus on how to defeat Fascism in WWII and what to do when that was done - I could see the an internet thread in 1945 debating Churchill's staunch realism vs. Roosevelt's hopeful idealism (which was manipulated by Stalin's totalitarian paranoia).
> 
> ...



Omg Infanteer you just posted what I have been saying even before the war officially began. Finally I found someone who agrees that Iraq, militarily speaking, was the perfect place to strike within the middle east.  Not only did it possess a very weak regime with a dictator, who like you said, was at the end of his reign.  It also possesses access to the Gulf and is smack in the middle of the Middle East (linked to Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria).  Basically with the US in possession of this land they now are firmly entrenched in the middle east.  They have a funnel to ship future troops into the Mid East through, they are smack in the center, they have a large number of forces in the area, basically they now possess the upper hand atleast from a military standpoint.  

But on to the topic currently being debated.  Canadian involvement in Iraq.  Although I do believe it would be in our nations best interests to go into iraq it will never happen for these reasons:

1.  Sending troops to Iraq would be political suicide for the minority Liberal party.
2.  Our military is overstretched as it is, sending torops to iraq would further reduce its capability.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Feb 2005)

National Post today reports on Canadian trainers that have been working with NATO since August and training Iraqi trainers in Baghdad.

What was that we weren't going to do again? ???

Je suis bien confuseed.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Feb 2005)

Oh but those are officers that were attach posted to American units so they don't count as Canadians.  

Goodness how do they continue to get away with stuff like this.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2005)

"Martin officially informed NATO that Canada will send 30 soldiers to Jordan to help train Iraqi soldiers and will contribute $1 million to a NATO fund for training."

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109028360111_55?hub=topstories

Martin keeping a low profile at NATO summit 
CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Paul Martin sounded a diplomatic note in reacting to U.S. President George W. Bush's reaching-out speech to NATO.

"I thought it was a very positive speech,'' he told reporters in Brussels on Monday. "But, I also think he echoed the view of a lot of us that there are a lot of issues which we've got to discuss in depth."

Martin also talked of a "rejuvenated NATO, one that is not simply a military alliance, one that has a political role to play."

On balance, Martin appeared to be keeping a low profile at the meeting, although he did meet privately with the prime minister of Belgium and the secretary-general of NATO.

Martin officially informed NATO that Canada will send 30 soldiers to Jordan to help train Iraqi soldiers and will contribute $1 million to a NATO fund for training.

"We also talked about the future of the NATO alliance and how important it is in making sure that the trans-Atlantic alliance is strong," he said.

Prior to the conference, Foreign Affairs Canada officials had been touting Canada's role as a bridge between Europe and the United States, the world's only military superpower.

However, Martin had no bilateral meetings with any of the more outspoken opponents of U.S. foreign policy -- particularly the war in Iraq.

Despite the lack of activity, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew insisted Canada was still playing an important role. 

"The role of interpreting Europe to the U.S and interpreting the U.S. to Europe is something that as something that as Foreign Minister and as Canadian diplomats, do very constructively all the time," he told reporters.

On Tuesday, Martin will join the summit of all NATO leaders.

On Wednesday, when the federal budget is delivered, CTV's David Akin reports that the Liberal government is expected to raise the defence budget by $1-billion annually.

Mr. Dithers

Opposition party MPs were delighted last week when the influential British publication the Economist described Martin as Mr. Dithers, saying he wasn't showing strong leadership.

Cabinet ministers indignantly defended their boss and a new Ipsos-Reid poll for CTV and the Globe and Mail had Canadians giving Martin a 56 per cent approval rating.

"I always liked the guy, but that isn't what this is all about," said Martin on Monday, referring to the boss character from the cartoon strip Blondie.

Any further questions were deflected, with Martin saying he was there to speak about the future of the transatlantic alliance.

But in Parliament's question period, the opposition continued with the dithering shots, working the term into three different defence-related questions.

With a report from CTV's David Akin and files from The Canadian Press


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> "Martin officially informed NATO that Canada will send 30 soldiers to Jordan to help train Iraqi soldiers and will contribute $1 million to a NATO fund for training."



30 troops and a million dollars . . . wow. The government has really outdone themselves this time with such a massive contibution to a cause that wasn't polictically correct enough to attract the Liberals interest when the bullets were flying.

Guess it'll look good in the Ontario news media though.  :-X


----------



## Blue Max (22 Feb 2005)

MHO is that this is only more Liberal BS with no substance. :rage:

Martin also talked of a "rejuvenated NATO, one that is not simply a military alliance, one that has a political role to play."
So that Canada does not need to meet it NATO commitments?


On balance, Martin appeared to be keeping a low profile at the meeting, although he did meet privately with the prime minister of Belgium and the secretary-general of NATO.

However, Martin had no bilateral meetings with any of the more outspoken opponents of U.S. foreign policy -- particularly the war in Iraq.

Prior to the conference, Foreign Affairs Canada officials had been touting Canada's role as a bridge between Europe and the United States, the world's only military superpower.
If you have next to no bilateral meetings of any consequence how can you be an importantant mediator? ???


"We also talked about the future of the NATO alliance and how important it is in making sure that the trans-Atlantic alliance is strong," he said.

"The role of interpreting Europe to the U.S and interpreting the U.S. to Europe is something that as something that as Foreign Minister and as Canadian diplomats, do very constructively all the time," he told reporters. 
Is Canada the only country that can translate English to French? :blotto:

Frankly I do not see a particularly warm relationship between Canada's Liberal's and the US, hence my take that this is spin for the uninitiated. :-[


----------



## q_1966 (24 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Oh but those are officers that were attach posted to American units so they don't count as Canadians.
> Goodness how do they continue to get away with stuff like this.



Cdn. Officers dont count as canadians...hmm


----------



## Kurhaus (25 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Oh but those are officers that were attach posted to American units so they don't count as Canadians.
> 
> Goodness how do they continue to get away with stuff like this.



I think it comes down to the old political "two step".  If there are no Canadian Military Units  deployed in Iraq, then that would be the Government's bottom line.  Does anyone know if the media has ever asked the PM, Foregin Affairs or Defense Minister, the direct question, "Are there any Canadian Military personnel serving with US units in Iraq?" and if so what the response was.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2005)

But this comes from a long line of Canadian Non-Involvement.

Korea -  Special Service Brigade made up of non-regular volunteers to form 3 new battalions rather than committing regs
WW2 - Volunteers rather than conscripts
WW1 - Volunteers and a brand new army (including the privately raised PPCLI) rather than committing conscripts
Boer War - Volunteers and privately raised Lord Strathcona's
1885 Nile Expedition - Relief of Khartoum - Canadian boatmen chartered to move supplies in support of the Imperial effort.

It was ever thus in Canada -

Every government has danced around the same flaming ELEPHANT in the room.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (27 Feb 2005)

Of crse they dance around it.  If they actually got off their ass and put out the fire they would see that Canadians want a military that is capable of deploying to this places and putting a stop to alot of the crap that is going on.  Iraq maybe not so much because of the bad press but the rebuilding of a nation is something Canada has always contributed to.


----------



## mo-litia (28 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> they would see that Canadians want a military that is capable of deploying to this places and putting a stop to alot of the crap that is going on.



Do they? I do, you do and probably most people on this forum do - but ask Johnny Lunchpail where his priorities lie and you'll likely get a different response.   It's going to talk a long time and a supportive media ( :) to change attitudes in this nation.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (1 Mar 2005)

Do they? I do, you do and probably most people on this forum do - but ask Johnny Lunchpail where his priorities lie and you'll likely get a different response.  It's going to talk a long time and a supportive media ( ) to change attitudes in this nation.

Of course they do, they don't want us to be war makers but peace keepers and peace makers.  The public loves us when we do something that gives Canada credit.  The Government loves to ship us around the globe to show its commitment to the UN or NATO or whatever the flavour of the month is .  To accomplish this we need to be able to make war though.  I think if we can sell them black we will get to be grey as well.  We have to keep the public happy but we also must remember to continue to train for our real job.


----------



## karl28 (1 Mar 2005)

The public has to realize that Freedom and Democracy comes at price . Some times you have to stand up for what you believe in most . The Americans need are help we should do are part to  assist them .


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

Here's a press release from the Dutch Ministry of Defence - an example of succinctness, clarity, and "taking ownership" of consequences and the risk to life and limb.




> Enduring Freedom
> 
> 
> (Source: Dutch Ministry of Defence; issued Feb. 28, 2005)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

It appears that the Dutch politicians have learned much since Srebrenica.


----------

