# NATO would be willing to listen if Iraq asks for help



## Pieman (17 Jun 2004)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO would be willing to listen if Iraq asks for help 
Last Updated Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:35:20 
BRUSSELS - NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer says the military alliance would be prepared to listen to Iraq's new government if it came seeking assistance in stabilizing the country. 


INDEPTH: Iraq

Last week U.S. President George W. Bush said NATO should be involved in Iraq. 


So far the military alliance has limited itself to providing logistical support for a Polish-led division in south-central Iraq. 

NATO is due to hold a summit in Istanbul just two days before Iraq's new interim government takes power. 



Written by CBC News Online staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/16/world/nato040616

If NATO goes, then so does Canada. I would venture to guess the earliest NATO forces coiuld move in there is about a year if they do go.   What capasity would Canada be able to contribute, I wonder?


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (18 Jun 2004)

I, and I'm sure a large number of people, believe we shouldn't go there. It's not a cause, that I for one believe in, or one that Canada should be involved in.

As a NATO country though, we would have the right to decide whether or not we'd like to go, we're not in the days of the British Empire like in WW1 when an ally goes to war we have tag along with them. 

I hope that the new PM, who ever it will be, will get the country a better back bone and put their foot down and say "No! This is not what we believe in!"

Besides, the way things are with our military, Iraq would be a CONSIDERABLE strain on the forces, which would ruin allot of the effort and measures that have been done to rebuild it and fix the degradation of us doing too much, too long with too little.


----------



## Pieman (19 Jun 2004)

> I, and I'm sure a large number of people, believe we shouldn't go there. It's not a cause, that I for one believe in, or one that Canada should be involved in.


Yes, I am sure there are a lot of people that don't feel we should go there. Going into Iraq initially was not a very popular idea here in Canada.

The situation has changed now. We would not be going for the purpose of taking over the country but to help stabilize it. There is a big problem over there, are we going to sit on the sidelines, or help fix it?  Personally, I think we have a responsibility to help stabilize the country if we can.  If not for the people of Iraq, but for our own security. If America fails to stabilize that country, Canada is going to get caught in the cross fire. That would not be a good situation to be in at all.

I agree with your point about the strain on our military, even if called upon, maybe we would not have much to contribute at this time anyway?


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (19 Jun 2004)

Those are some good points Pieman but you need to analyze the issue deeper. 

If we went to stabilize Iraq and help the people, that would fall under a UN mission, as its role would be humanitarian. Going to Iraq under NATO, is going as a result as a military alliance, meaning you're just asking for trouble.

If Canada did go to Iraq under the UN, then I'd be more open eyed to it. However, I'm quite sure that despite the authority of the PM being able to send soldiers overseas on a Peace Keeping mandate of the UN Charter Chapter 6, he would not do so because the decision would also be very unpopular, I'm quite sure that if he wanted to keep his political career intact, he'd ask for approval of parliament despite not needing it.

Also, Iraq is a very difficult area of operations to launch a peacekeeping effort; therefore some more aggressive Rules of Engagement would have to be written up, meaning that perhaps Canada would go as a â Å“Peace Makingâ ? role which would now be a UN Chapter 7 role that does require approval from parliament.

Also, look at this from a military point of view. I like to think that if we don't bother someone, they won't bother us. There are many people who have stated on this site before that the extremists don't know what Canada is and who we are and what we stand for etc. and that they'd attack us anyways....but I ask you, why give them a reason or an incentive?

Besides,  Iraq never had the WMD capability to attack North American EVER! Why? Because Iraq's nuke programs and facilities were constantly attacked by the ISAF and the US before and after Dessert Storm. Look at countries like India and Pakistan, who haven't had their nuke programs interfered with, they've been working on their nukes for decades now and they don't have the capability to fire one outside the Middle East...not even close! 

So is Iraq a threat? No, the extremists are, why give them a reason so that propaganda and extreme corrupted religious beliefs would cause them to think we are an enemy or target.  

Keep in mind that what could be seen as a humanitarian effort to us appears to be an imperialistic hostile takeover to them.

Remember the Japanese soldiers that were taken hostage etc? Japan's Army (Japan Ground Domestic Security Force) is a NON OFFENSIVE military force! They are purely Defensive. They went to Iraq with less then 300 soldiers to purify water and only carried small caliber submachine guns to protect themselves. Obviously, the extremists thought otherwise.

As for the strain issue, a strain no matter how small, is still a strain. At this point we shouldn't be letting any go through because they are too damaging at this present time.

I stand by what I say, Iraq and Canada don't mix.


----------



## Figure11 (19 Jun 2004)

This topic reminds me of a quote in a recent Macleans article which stated that "...here in Canada we condemn terrorism, we don't fight it." Notwithstanding, the efforts of the brave men and women in Afghanistan, it seems to have a ring of truth about it.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jun 2004)

It's good to see the cheerleaders are cheering on the fact that the team is on the sidelines.


----------



## childs56 (19 Jun 2004)

its really funny that we pick and chose wars that we like and dislike. based on our personalle opinions. i for one beleive that Iraq one of many countries had to be sorted out. this was for the security of the region. as much as we talk about the fight for oil yes it is but this oil also means stability for the rest of western world. we have to realize that we as soldier saliors and airmen never want to go to war or have to go peace keep. this means their was a break down of peace and stability somewhere. this also means that our own people are going to die.(friends family) I can tell you right now that had the Cn tower in Toronto or the Petro Can bldg's in Calgary been targetd then we would want all the support of our allies. i will say the attitudes of the average Canadian citizen is leave it alone, this may be why we have some of the largest terrost cells in western civ. we have neglected these problems for years now and the only reason why these terroist have yet to do anything to us in Canada is that they need a place to get money and training, hmm Canada looks good. we turn a blind eye to all our problems externall and domestic. i think the biggest thing we could do to supprot our allies in the war for terrosim is to get all our's out of our country. we are right now kepping a guy locked up in a prison who was known to had formal traiing in a al qida training camp. it seems like he wont be deported. we need to get tough on this situation. all of you peace loving and new age soldiers need to rethink why you are in the military. and about the freedoms that were made for, just the sacrifices that are being made by our allies soldiers around the globe. just my 2 cents worth


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jun 2004)

Pte NoMercy....I might be misunderstanding your post but the Japanese that were taken hostage were journalists and aid workers not members of the Japanese Self Defence Forces also I have always seen Japanese military personnel armed with Type 89 assault rifles (5.56mm) and not small caliber smgs. I would be interested in seeing a source for you info. Thanks


----------



## Figure11 (20 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's good to see the cheerleaders are cheering on the fact that the team is on the sidelines.



Not sure if this one was aimed at me. If it was could you please elaborate? Thanks


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (20 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon,

You're right! 

I looked it up agian and they were a bunch of civis and not GDSF...sorry. :-[

However, this doesn't affect my point much as these people were taken hostage and threatened to be burned alive unless the Japanese Ground Domestic Security Force was withdrawn from Iraq, who were on a water purifying mission and a purely defensive force.

In fact, this even makes my point stronger as the hostages were not even soldiers, but became a target just because they were Japanese civilians....do we want Canadian civilians to be held hostage or killed because they became a target by being Canadian?
Keep in mind that Japanese diplomats have already been killed in Iraq too.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/19/eng20031219_130766.shtml

The fact of the matter is, the extremists don't care who you are or what you're doing in Iraq, despite good intentions, and have absolutely no problem attacking and killing peacekeepers, UN staff and civilians.

As for the weapons issue, yes they have various 5.56 mm weapons and allot of other good kit too. However, the weapons that they were sent to Iraq with were smaller SMG's, at least that's what the CNN report I saw informed me about. 

I'm still looking for a better article, but the one I'm providing has some interesting pictures...notice how they armored jeeps have a spot for a high caliber machine gun? It's not there...because they are carrying small caliber weapons for defensive purposes only. Allot of articles are simply focusing on how they're military has changed and how a shot in conflict wasn't fired since WW2. 

http://www.talkingproud.us/International011704.html


----------



## Figure11 (20 Jun 2004)

Pte.Nomercy said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon,
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the extremists don't care who you are or what you're doing in Iraq, despite good intentions, and have absolutely no problem attacking and killing peacekeepers, UN staff and civilians.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

> Not sure if this one was aimed at me. If it was could you please elaborate? Thanks



No, quite the opposite; I agree with the quote you supplied.  My barb was aimed at those who applaud the fact that we condemn terrorism rather than fight it.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jun 2004)

Pte NoMercy

Is it your position then that nothing should be done?

That the world at large should stand back and let "extremists" (your word) impose their will on the inhabitants of Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo...........?

That the aged, infirm and young of the world should be left to the tender mercies of those that believe in racial purity, religious purity, ideological purity....?

You do sound as if you subscribe to the modern notion of moral relativism.  Both sides have a point, I can't decide, therefore I will do nothing.

Or alternatively are you coming from the position that the only reason to fight is to protect yourself?

If that is the case do I assume that you see no need for expeditionary forces and instead we should do away with the 48th, the militia and the reserves and pump all the money into a beefed up RCMP and Coast Guard?

I am just confused here and seeking clarification ???


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (20 Jun 2004)

Kirkhill,

I simply firmly believe that Canadian military involvement in Iraq should not happen. 

We have seen examples on TV, and other media as well as on this site, as to what happens to people trying to stabilize the country over there. 

I feel, that if we enter Iraq for whatever reason, Canadian citizens will get killed, in my opinion, for no reason at all. Iraq is not in our military interest. The coalition that is in Iraq right now is taking care of that job and if they believe in a non UN approved liberation, then more power to them. 

I mentioned before, that if the situation in Iraq was run by the UN and not the US, then I would be more for the idea for our soldiers going in to help.

I feel that if we enter Iraq, we become a target, like all the coalition countries that are in the country right now. Remember what happened to Spain? Do we want that to happen in Canada? 

You give examples of â Å“Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo,â ? I don't need to tell you that we've been already there...but we were there under the flag of the UN for the most part now weren't we? Even when we went to Dessert Storm, we were with the UN too. I feel that going to Iraq to be under American command and not the United Nations is not what we stand or believe in. Hence, why we didn't go.

I see the purpose of expeditionary forces, when the PPCLI went to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban, and then how we began to bring life back to normal there. I believe in it because it is a UN operation, not some coalition that decides what they want to do when they want to.

I realize there are gung ho people who want to go to Iraq, but think of this; Is it really beneficial for us? If anything, we would become a target, if not more so, just like all the other countries that came into Iraq with good intentions.  Is it worht the lives of Canadian soldiers and civilians ?

You have to pick your battles, yes you do. You can't just storm off some place because you feel it's time to fight terrorism. If Canada wants to help terrorism, it should continue/greatly improve to work on its screening and investigations on people coming into this country to ensure we are not harboring terrorists. It should also continue its work around the world in Afghanistan and everywhere else in the Middle East with the UN illustrating to them that we are against terrorism and that we also work in conjunction with the UN.

If Iraq becomes a UN operation, then Canada should be involved in it. The PM already said that we would send over supplies and humanitarian aid to help the stabilization regardless whether it's UN or not.

People should settle down and look at this realistically, Canada can help Iraq, things are already being done to help by other countries and, eventually us. Going to Iraq without the UN under a NATO alliance is just asking for trouble.

There is a fight in Iraq, but it isn't ours.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Jun 2004)

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.  Somehow I don't see Osama and his ilk caring one way or the other wether a military operation is run by the UN or NATO.  The insurgents in Iraq right now will target our troops no matter whose flag they go in under.  And I do not beleive that we should sit on our asses simply because if we interfere we might become targets of terrorists.  If we do nothing and the terrorists win, we will eventually become their targets anyway.  Giving up because of fear has never been the Canadian way.


----------



## jswift872 (20 Jun 2004)

i agree to a certain extent, we will let the terrorists win by doing nothing, but also we are very under staffed if you will, and it would not be a good idea to go in such a touchy place in these messed up times. know what i mean?


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (20 Jun 2004)

48Highlander,

I NEVER said anything about giving up or doing nothing in the fight against terrorism.

I believe we shouldn't go to Iraq unless it is a UN a mission. I could care less what the terrorists think to be honest. As a country, we support UN operations and should continue to do so. If we're to become a target, at least let's be in Iraq with the UN as oppose to the US.

I agree with the point you made about NATO and UN flags and them not caring who you are, I've been pushing that point for a while. 

I believe that the Iraq campaign does not have the conditions for a Canadian operation as it obliviously looks like a lot of different things to different people.

Canada should continue to fight terrorism and should never be afraid, but we shouldn't go to a place to appease someone or to fight the good fight without proper conditions and terms. It's not for the terrorists, it's for US. Going under the UN in my opinion, would make it appear less imperialistic and fascist, I know the terrorists don't see a difference, but at least the civilized world would and we will still MAINTAIN OUR VALUES


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

> I feel that if we enter Iraq, we become a target, like all the coalition countries that are in the country right now. Remember what happened to Spain? Do we want that to happen in Canada?



Do you feel Canada is not a terrorist target because we decided not to go to Iraq.   If you do, you are incredibly naive.   The fact that we speak English, drive fancy cars, operate under a free market, and believe in liberal democracy has put us in the cross-hairs of terrorist organizations, Iraq or no Iraq.



> You give examples of â Å“Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo,â ? I don't need to tell you that we've been already there...but we were there under the flag of the UN for the most part now weren't we? Even when we went to Dessert Storm, we were with the UN too. I feel that going to Iraq to be under American command and not the United Nations is not what we stand or believe in. Hence, why we didn't go.



Kosovo wasn't sanctioned by the UN, but it didn't stop us from interceding.   Can you reconcile that with what you believe in?



> I see the purpose of expeditionary forces, when the PPCLI went to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban, and then how we began to bring life back to normal there. I believe in it because it is a UN operation, not some coalition that decides what they want to do when they want to.



I don't recall seeing many blue helmets in Tora Bora.   Operation Apollo was a combat mission led by the United States, and we were under the operational control of a brigade of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).   Once again. you seem to have an unclear idea of how Canada's military has been deployed.



> I realize there are gung ho people who want to go to Iraq, but think of this; Is it really beneficial for us? If anything, we would become a target, if not more so, just like all the other countries that came into Iraq with good intentions.   Is it worht the lives of Canadian soldiers and civilians ?



Although I believe there are flaws in the current US strategy, I am awaiting to see what sort of changes will follow the June handover to the Interim Government.   However, with our limited resources, I think a deployment of Canadian soldiers to Iraq would have to be carefully looked at.   It would be beneficial if it supported the overall goal of behaviour change in the regimes of the Middle East that support terrorism.   I don't think it would be to our advantage for Canadian Army units to get thrown into the fray of Baghdad, al Najaf or Fallujah.

However, because we cannot provide the manpower to the effort doesn't excuse us from turning our backs on our two best friends.



> You have to pick your battles, yes you do. You can't just storm off some place because you feel it's time to fight terrorism. If Canada wants to help terrorism, it should continue/greatly improve to work on its screening and investigations on people coming into this country to ensure we are not harboring terrorists. It should also continue its work around the world in Afghanistan and everywhere else in the Middle East with the UN illustrating to them that we are against terrorism and that we also work in conjunction with the UN.
> If Iraq becomes a UN operation, then Canada should be involved in it. The PM already said that we would send over supplies and humanitarian aid to help the stabilization regardless whether it's UN or not.



You seem to see the UN as the great white hope in all of this.   I think you're setting yourself up for a dissapointment.



> MAINTAIN OUR VALUES



And what would those be?


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Jun 2004)

Is this the same UN that has been embezzling millions of dollars in the last 10 years, under the guise of oil-for-food, etc. ?  Ahh - that's a noble cause.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (20 Jun 2004)

I'll give you that Infanteer, no problem.

But was not Canadian involvement approved by the UN as well, often the UN doesn't want to condone a conflict and wars but they do quietly support them...isn't that what happened in Afghanistan? That's why there were no blue helmets, just as in Kosovo too, and before that, in Somalia.

Also don't patronize me about the â Å“fancy carâ ? ideology as that is basic argument as to why terrorists hate us, everyone knows that. The fact of the matter is, I rather have them hate me because I live better then they do, as oppose to us being involved in Iraq without the UN.

As for me thinking the UN is some kind of â Å“great hopeâ ? I didn't think of it that way at all. My whole point of the UN launching an operation in Iraq is that it would suit Canada's values far more then marching off with the Americans.

Are you saying that you want to ignore what this country stands for? The values that made us one of the greatest countries in the world? Going to Iraq without the UN would not only be out of our character, but also against our values.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

> I'll give you that Infanteer, no problem.


Give me what?



> But was not Canadian involvement approved by the UN as well, often the UN doesn't want to condone a conflict and wars but they do quietly support them...isn't that what happened in Afghanistan? That's why there were no blue helmets, just as in Kosovo too, and before that, in Somalia.



So in other words, the support of Britain and the US is not good enough, yet the support of France and Germany is required?



> Also don't patronize me about the â Å“fancy carâ ? ideology as that is basic argument as to why terrorists hate us, everyone knows that. The fact of the matter is, I rather have them hate me because I live better then they do, as oppose to us being involved in Iraq without the UN.



You didn't read my post.   I said Iraq or no Iraq, they will still hate and target Canadians.   Wishing it weren't so isn't a good way to determine foreign policy.



> As for me thinking the UN is some kind of â Å“great hopeâ ? I didn't think of it that way at all. My whole point of the UN launching an operation in Iraq is that it would suit Canada's values far more then marching off with the Americans.



Your whole theory of Canada's war on terror seems to revolve around the UN.   Like I said before, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment.



> Are you saying that you want to ignore what this country stands for? The values that made us one of the greatest countries in the world? Going to Iraq without the UN would not only be out of our character, but also against our values.



And what would those be?


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Jun 2004)

Sorry, but I stopped beleiving in the UN after General Delaire came home with post-traumatic stress disoreder.  The UN stopped Canadian soldiers from doing the right thing then...and I don't beleive that we can depend on them to tell us what the right thing to do is now.  UN approval WOULD make us look better in the forum of "public opinion", but we don't need it, and I don't want it.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (21 Jun 2004)

Yes the UN is an looked upon as American and superpower tool, allot of the time, and it has, and continues to foul up.

However, just because certain people cheat and don't follow the rules within the United Nations game, doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to their level. We need things like the UN to make way for better organizations; the UN wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the League of Nations prior to it.

Also not needing the UN? Do you throw away an entire police force because it has a few bad cops? No, you clean the system and make it work to as it was designed to

I'm also well aware of General Delaire's situation and it pissed me off quite a bit. This wasn't the only time the UN didn't prevent genocide, remember Pol Pot? 

Canada's values and identity closely follow those ideals of the UN, hence when I go on and on about the United Nations on this post I'm well aware of the corruption, favoritism and bureaucratic stupidity that plagues the UN. 

I simply believe that if Canada did go to Iraq it should be under those terms and values that a true UN believes in and still enforces.

Also, Infanteer, you seem to do a good job disemboweling my posts, some nice work and even better points. 

Let me ask you a question to stir things up a bit. You were asking as to what I thought were to be Canadian vales and character....I'm interested in what you think those are.


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So in other words, the support of Britain and the US is not good enough, yet the support of France and Germany is required?
> [



I really think this is key.......we can say we disagree. We can say we don't believe. But we have to look at who we are throwing our hats in with. France and Germany over America and the Brits? Anywhere those 2 countries are Canadians should be as well. There are few countries that espouse the same morals and values as Canada. Our way of life must be preserved. Divided we fall.

 :fifty: by the way......why is the cocking lever on the left side of this .50 cal???[/quote]


----------



## Pieman (21 Jun 2004)

> Going under the UN in my opinion, would make it appear less imperialistic and fascist, I know the terrorists don't see a difference, but at least the civilized world would and we will still MAINTAIN OUR VALUES





> Canada's values and identity closely follow those ideals of the UN



I am having trouble understanding these points.   What is the difference between our responsibility to help the UN mandate and the NATO mandate? Canada is a member of both these organizations and I think we believe in both of them. If NATO asked us for our help to sort out a bad situation, I think it is against Canadian morals to say no. Since when does Canada turn down a plea for help?

Not only that, I believe it is taking our fate into our own hands by stepping up to the fight. To say that it is best to not get involved because that way no Canadians will get hurt is wishful thinking at best. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there is a fair number of Canadians in Iraq now working for oil companies as workers.

Consider this very possible situation:   What if one of our own gets captured with Iraqies threatening to cut off his head. And we cry 'No! He is a Canadian and we are not involved' and their response is 'He is from the West, he is in our country, and he is an Infandel ' and then they cut his head off and show it on the net. What would Canadian reaction be? 

(That situation did almost happen once but, thank God, we were able to secure his safe release. We were lucky that time.)




> The fact of the matter is, I rather have them hate me because I live better then they do, as oppose to us being involved in Iraq without the UN.


What's the difference? Hate is Hate.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (21 Jun 2004)

Pieman,

My point is that NATO is military alliance while the UN is more aimed at more humanitarian roles which sometimes endorse military involvement when necessary. 

Also, we are stepping up and fighting against terrorisim, that's why we went to Afghanistan and took part in operations in Tora Bora and launching efforts such as operation Anaconda where our troops blew away the coalition with our combat effectiveness...not to mention the Taliban as well. We have done more then enough to answer the call and still are showing responsibility and Canadian vigor by being in Afghanistan to this day and successfully making it a better place to live.

I am aware that there are private civilian workers in Iraq, my buddy's friend is going, he was granted a security contract. I'm also aware that relief agencies and humanitarian volunteer workers are there, not to mention the hippies who made human chains around certain buildings prior to the attack.

Also, Canada has said â Å“Noâ ? to NATO, and people who need help, quite a few times. A good example off the top of my head is the Boemar missile situation in which the US were pushing and pressuring us to buy these missiles. We eventually gave in and did, and then refused to buy the nuclear warheads which then rendered the missiles, and the millions of dollars for the program, to be useless. Just because NATO does something and we don't, it does not mean that we loose the ability to step up and fight, if we dropped out of NATO altogether, then you would have a point and I'd agree with you on that.

Now to your scenario, yes if a Canadian was killed and made tapes of etc then yes the response would be â Å“Oh, no!â ? That's the same response that all the countries who had their own people taken hostage or killed. The Canadian reaction would be anger towards the actions obviously but would not want further involvement in Iraq because they would feel that they going there would be just adding gas into the fire.

As for â Å“Hate is hate,â ? that is a good point and I agree that they hate us (Westerners) no matter what. Let me give you an example, and people don't analyze it to death but just think about it, â Å“Do you think that the terrorists hate Norway the same way they hate the US?â ?

I certainly don't think so, I haven't heard Bin Laden mention Norway, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Iceland in any of his funniest home videos mention specifically that he was going to attack them. 

The point I'm trying to make about the UN is that regardless of it being obviously not in the best working condition, Canada should still follow the ideologies and play by its rules despite not having the other teams/countries playing fair. Canada isn't known/ stereotyped as a asshole like the US now is it? 


Canada, I believe, does not stomp off to war with their friends just because they feel like it for whatever just cause those countries may have. We enter combat zones and wars because we feel strongly about them and more recently, go into where humanitarian aid is needed to help people that can not defend themselves and to protect the innocent from an oppressive and violent identified government or enemy. This is more or less the same format of the UN, in unofficial language, is it not?

Going to Iraq with the UN is not so much as recognition for them/terrorists, as it is for us. Do we want to be put further more into the same category as to how these people view the USA? They hate us, but why give them more a reason?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jun 2004)

Yes, 
They hate Norway the same way they hate us, it just doesn't make the same headlines, same with your other example countries.
Remember the people doing these things[extremists] even hate other Muslims, who do you think is taking the brunt of the car bombs in Iraq?   
You base your arguments on a logical assumption, not realizing your not dealing with logical people.
They hate because they hate and it is a small minority getting the headlines. I wonder what the other 99.99% of Muslims are doing today?   Just trying to get by like everyone else, wishing they could live in peace.


----------



## Guardian (21 Jun 2004)

Placing our hope in the UN to solve international problems is dangerously naive at best.

The UN's track record at dealing with conflict has been abysmal. Look at the Middle East (five wars and two intifadas later), the former Yugoslavia before NATO took over, Rwanda, the Congo, and Somalia. Look at Cyprus after 30 years of peacekeeping - still divided. Look at India and Pakistan - not only still at each other's throats and still shooting at each other, but now both armed with nukes - despite UN observer and assistance missions. 

In the case of Iraq, it was a UN-sanctioned force that freed Kuwait in 1991, but I'll point out that Saddam had ignored the UN resolutions telling him to leave for months prior to the assault. Afterwards, the UN passed resolution after resolution after resolution condemning Saddam for lack of cooperation on WMD, but never at any point communicated any resolve (read: consequences for noncompliance) to see them obeyed. 

This is the same UN that appoints such upstanding international citizens as Libya and Zimbabwe to its Human Rights apparatus.

Someone already mentioned the oil-for-food program.  

In short, I wouldn't trust the UN to supervise a daycare. To say our support for the UN is based on shared values (again, Libya and Zimbabwe?) is dead wrong, as it should be painfully obvious that the UN has no consistent values, and no spine to give significance to any that it might have. The UN is a useful international debating forum and relief agency, but it is irrelevant, as presently structured, as a security organization.

Thoughts?


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (21 Jun 2004)

Guardian,

Those are some great major points, I'm also aware of the UN crappy track record, but does the US and their military involvement have a better one?

So you're saying it better to go into a coalition (American) that is run by a country that has an equally if not more blood on its hands then the UN? 

The UN is hampered by bureaucratic fumbling, favoritism, corruption and all that other stuff which I aforementioned in previous posts that I'm well aware of. 

As a result, they messed up quite a bit and mission that were supposed to bring peace, ended up in disaster. In my opinion, the USA with all its conflicts and operations whether in the eye of the media or covertly in the Cold War, have just as a bad track record if not worse if you consider the fact that one country fouled up so many places and killed so many people around the world.

The coalition fouled up in Iraq already! They launched an entire conflict for WMD's that haven't been found, or possibly didn't even exist. Even if there were WMD's, in my previous posts I mentioned how Iraq's nuke program wouldn't even be cable of launching one outside of the Middle East.

There are countries around the world that also have nuclear capabilities far greater then Iraq and are pretty shady countries too, they haven't been liberated by the coalition yet have they?

Keep in mind, allot of the problems in the world today started because of the USA. Do I need to remind you where Saddam got his initial WMD's? Or where Osama and his freedom fighters got their special forces training and thousands of Stinger missiles?  Or why Africa became a war zone as a result of high caliber weapons provided to them? 

You successfully argued your point on how the UN isn't up to the job, tell me how the USA is better, OTHER then military superiority, to solve the Iraq problem. 

Also how it is a good idea to join a coalition of now extremely hated and looked down upon countries who are in Iraq because of these still not found WMD's? 

It's quite evident that everyone here believes the UN is ineffective, and I always agreed with all of you. 

My point is that I rather go in with a series of naive fundamental humanitarian values and a screwed up organization with a crappy track record, in oppose to an aggressive, and almost imperialistic, country with also a really bad track record that is launching yet another coalition on another country and people.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jun 2004)

Well you do that and first time they start shooting at you and your watching your buddies getting picked off remember it's ok because we're doing it for the UN...........oh wait hey Mr." aggressive and almost imperialistic country",could you save our asses, please.?


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Jun 2004)

> The coalition fouled up in Iraq already! They launched an entire conflict for WMD's that haven't been found, or possibly didn't even exist. Even if there were WMD's, in my previous posts I mentioned how Iraq's nuke program wouldn't even be cable of launching one outside of the Middle East.



I guess you didn't get the memo:



> UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
> 
> SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
> Friday, June 11, 2004
> The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.



Launching weapons outside of the Mideast was not the issue so much as their availability to terrorists, and the Iraqi Government's possible support of terrorist activities....


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2004)

> My point is that I rather go in with a series of naive fundamental humanitarian values and a screwed up organization with a crappy track record, in oppose to an aggressive, and almost imperialistic, country with also a really bad track record that is launching yet another coalition on another country and people.



 :

You're not doing a very good job on convincing the panel that you understand much about anything....

(PS: change your screen name, you're too delicate to be using the monkier "No Mercy".)


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (21 Jun 2004)

If we're not doing it for the UN who are we doing it for then? The United States? Iraq is their cause and their problem. Remember when they thought they could handle the situation themselves and wanted no one to steal the spot light?

Also, if you read my posts prior, you'd see that one of my major arguments was NOT to send our troops to Iraq to avoid such horrific scenarios as UN mandates have screwed our guys on more then one occasion. 

I don't agree with us being there under the UN or with the USA, I just believe that if we have to choose; the UN is the lesser of two evils.

Why should we send our guys over there when a year ago the USA told everyone, including the UN to screw off, and stormed into Iraq. Then when things got dicey they decided to change their mind and humbly ask for help, disguising it as â Å“the responsibility of the free world to help Iraq.â ? They had their chance, for Canada's help in my opinion, now they want help on their terms and when they want it? Do they expect us to come running like an obedient lackey?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jun 2004)

Now I realize that you have no real argument, your only logic is your hatred of the US. Your quote about telling everyone to screw off is just asinine, they asked anyone that were SUPPOSED to be their friends to help out and instead Cretin booked it.
Show anyone a line that was ever used that said they wouldn't accept any help. JUST ONE!


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (21 Jun 2004)

To Muskrat and your response all I have to say is HOW UNFORTUNATE. 

And yes I did get the memo, long ago.

A superpower nation that does nothing about boasting about their technology and satellites didn't see the mean terrorists move highly radioactive war heads out of the country? I think some one must have been asleep at the security monitor then? 

Maybe that's why they are no more WMD's in Iraq...because he shipped them all away!

Then why launch the war on Iraq when they have no more WMD's? Where are they? We better go and attack the other countries that bought these weapons and components off Saddam now shouldn't we! Where does it end?

If you're sending men to die in a war that has a major emphases on WMD's you better be sure they are there or otherwise you end up looking pretty silly wouldn't you say? I believe that's why there's a huge investigation being launched on the CIA and FBI to find out where they got this intelligence that launched the entire war on this shoddy intell.

As for Infateer, You haven't answered my previous question. Are you stalling? 

Not only that, you just shred my posts apart and don't seem do anything else? Where's YOUR proof other then your witty little sarcastic remarks?

Furthermore, it would be nice to hear what you think as oppose to your one liners that just state â Å“you are wrong,â ? how am I wrong? Shut me up and enlighten me because you're not doing a very good job at voicing your argument properly. At least other people who disagree write more then just a sentence stating that I'm wrong with some substance.

As for my name, I think No Mercy fits me as I have done nothing but consistently argue and bitch at my point.

Ether you're very ignorant or unable to see the fact that I have demonstrated a very realistic overview of the situation and given many points to consider.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (21 Jun 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse,

Sir,

If you can't see a point to my argument, and feel that my logic is just anti-American ramblings then I have no reason debate with you.   

I think what I have contributed to this forum is something that has far more substance then a pointless argument with an anti-American agenda; in fact, I've been pro-Canadian as I am looking out for our interests before we decide to head off to war. If you don't look after yourself first, then no one will.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jun 2004)

..and I can appreciate that except you throw quotes out but have no facts to back them up. Can you answer the question in my last post?


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2004)

> A superpower nation that does nothing about boasting about their technology and satellites didn't see the mean terrorists move highly radioactive war heads out of the country? I think some one must have been asleep at the security monitor then?



It's a big world out there, and it's hard to track every single truck in Iraq.   Do you honestly believe that US intelligence is that exact?



> Maybe that's why they are no more WMD's in Iraq...because he shipped them all away!



Why not?   I would venture Syria to be a good starting point.   He's clearly demonstrated that he's had WMD by using them before; do you think a dictator just up and listened to the UN, that aegis of Canadian values, and decided to get rid of his WMDs? 



> Then why launch the war on Iraq when they have no more WMD's? Where are they? We better go and attack the other countries that bought these weapons and components off Saddam now shouldn't we! Where does it end?
> 
> If you're sending men to die in a war that has a major emphases on WMD's you better be sure they are there or otherwise you end up looking pretty silly wouldn't you say? I believe that's why there's a huge investigation being launched on the CIA and FBI to find out where they got this intelligence that launched the entire war on this shoddy intell.



Disarming a tinpot dictator of his NBC capabilities in a region of strategic interest for the West was one of the many reasons for invading Iraq; the presence of WMD's and their no-show for the Coalition have simply been in the media spotlight due to the headlines it can provide for those opposed to the current administration.



> As for Infateer, You haven't answered my previous question. Are you stalling?



What question, that vague little quip you threw at the end of one of your blustering statements about what I felt Canadian values were?   I figured it to be rhetorical, since it was so wide open and didn't really pertain to the debate enough to warrant the effort.   Do you think a system of universal health insurance is one of the reasons we decided to man the post at the UN and tell the Americans they were on their own?



> Not only that, you just shred my posts apart and don't seem do anything else? Where's YOUR proof other then your witty little sarcastic remarks?



I simply reply to the innaccurate and unfounded statements that you seem to insist on repeatedly telling us.   As others may attest, I've stated my position more than enough times, and don't feel I have to give an explanation to every kid who comes here trumpeting "UN, BUSH LIED, AMERICA SUCKS!!!" because it happens quite frequently.



> Furthermore, it would be nice to hear what you think as oppose to your one liners that just state â Å“you are wrong,â ? how am I wrong? Shut me up and enlighten me because you're not doing a very good job at voicing your argument properly. At least other people who disagree write more then just a sentence stating that I'm wrong with some substance.



Ask and ye shall receive.   So far, you've just recycled some silly point about sticking with the UN, which nobody has agreed with.   Since your obviously not doing well in debating the matter, put forward a topic that pertains to the debate at hand (which appears to be Canada's interests in the UN as opposed to the US).



> As for my name, I think No Mercy fits me as I have done nothing but consistently argue and bitch at my point.



Yeah, I noticed the argue and bitch part, but I think I side with Bruce when I say I'm still looking for your point.   Maybe Pte NoPoint or Pte Hotair would be apt.   Try and provide evidence to back up your claims, because the fact that no one here has yet to agree with you should maybe tell you that your running on fumes.



> Ether you're very ignorant or unable to see the fact that I have demonstrated a very realistic overview of the situation and given many points to consider.



Sure.   If all you can do to respond to my criticism of your theory is to label me ignorant and unaware of your true understanding, go ahead; I think you got a future career in the UN secured.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (21 Jun 2004)

Well answer this then,

Do you believe that Canadian forces going to Iraq would be a good idea?

I'm all ears.

Also, the opinion of me being some kid yelling about America sucks is getting old. America has blood on its hands for the conflicts that they launched before and that is a well known fact. I am not anti American nor some flag burning hippie. I have relatives in the states and American friends. I am all for the fight against terrorism but think that Canada should maintain its role in Afghanistan. I simply believe that following the examples of the USA would not be a good idea for Canada. That is all. 

Since apparently everyone disagrees with me about my opinion, and I've argued my point to hell and back, I'm just curious as to why Canadian involvement in Iraq would be beneficial for us and why everyone here thinks we should go.


----------



## Pieman (22 Jun 2004)

> Do you believe that Canadian forces going to Iraq would be a good idea?



If the UN, NATO, or yes even the US came to us formally requesting our help, then I think we should go. It is our responsibility to our allies and it is our responsibility to do everthing in our power to prevent further destabilisation. You argued that the US caused this situation despite the UN objection, well, the situation has changed. Maybe the US did make a mistake by going in there, but is it really in our best interests to say no and refuse to help them? I don't think so. I think it is a good idea since it is preventing a bad situation from going to worse.

Your main argument that going with the UN is better than going with NATO is really a matter of opinion. I think you are right that most Canadians would be behind the idea of going to Iraq under the UN, but that is mainly because the majority of the public sees our forces primary role as a peace keeping force, and will support just about any peace keeping role. If Canada went under NATO, going to Iraq would be much less popular with the Canadian population, but it is a matter of opinion if we should go under NATO or not.   Just because it is not as popular, does not mean we should ignore a request for our help.



> I simply believe that following the examples of the USA would not be a good idea for Canada


I don't think going to help the US sort out a bad situation is following their lead at all. It is simply helping an ally clean up a problem.



> Since apparently everyone disagrees with me about my opinion, and I've argued my point to heck and back


I think we could all be arguing till we are blue in the face on many of these points, as really most are based on  individual opinions from both sides of these arguments. Unless someone could outline some highly probable pro/cons of going to Iraq, we would have more to discuss about besides our personal opinion the matter.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

> Well answer this then,
> 
> Do you believe that Canadian forces going to Iraq would be a good idea?
> 
> I'm all ears.



For the most part, my answer would be yes.

Like I said before, I wouldn't advocate the deployment of Canadian soldiers to the hornets nest that is Baghdad, Najaf, or the Sunni Triangle.   IF we were able to find the necessary troops to make possible a deployment, I would like to see us place under the British Division in the south.   Ideally, with the handover, the American-led coalition can dissengage itself from the urban centers.   To me, the prime reason for remaining in Iraq (and for which I support Western, and more particularly, Canadian involvement) in to have the military forces on hand to present a real political force to encourage behaviour change in a region traditionally hostile to Western interests.   By contributing to Iraq, Canada can take its place on the line ensuring that Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran know we are playing hardball when it comes to terrorism.

So much for the military aspect.   I also believe some sort of involvement in Iraq is _politically_ necessary in order to repair some of the bridges between our allies and brothers that Cretin so callously burnt.   Even if initially all we can offer is political support, we would be telling the world that we are taking ourselves out of the Axis of the Meek.      I felt that we took one step forward by deploying to Kandahar and then took two steps back by choosing to sit on the fence on the issue and than get down on the wrong side.   We need to show our friends that we will not stand on the sidelines while they fight our battles for us.   By joining, we can regain our "seat at the table" (or take Spains?) and ensure that we play an active roll in defending ourselves from the forces of barbarism and fanatic extremists.



> Also, the opinion of me being some kid yelling about America sucks is getting old. America has blood on its hands for the conflicts that they launched before and that is a well known fact. I am not anti American nor some flag burning hippie. I have relatives in the states and American friends. I am all for the fight against terrorism but think that Canada should maintain its role in Afghanistan. I simply believe that following the examples of the USA would not be a good idea for Canada. That is all.



I disagree.   Despite the fact that our Forces did an excellent job in Kabul, it remains a side-show.   Rather than supporting the Mayor of Kabul in some far-flung ideal of a democratic Afghanistan, I'd rather see our forces in Bagram where they could take part in operations in fighting Al Qaeda resistance. The North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, with its Pashtun tribalism, remains one of Osama bin Ladin's strongholds.   Despite, all the glitter of ISAF, the real game is down south.

I'm interested to hear if there has been any progress on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams.   These have the possibility of providing constructive regional stability and can be of use to prevent Taliban resurgence.

As well, please quit pushing forth the notion that going to Iraq would be a simple matter of "following the examples of the USA."   What of the other countries involved in this effort?   Are you forgetting the fact that Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain (which subsequently committed harikari), and a host of other states where behind the coalition that went into Iraq.   This is not a clear cut case of right vs wrong, rather it is a clash of interests for which we seem to be throwing ourselves in a position that offers us no political advantages (except, possibly, for allowing the government of the day to get away from being faced with the fact that it had neglected defence capabilities to the point of obscurity).

As well, I'm still curious as to why you see the UN as the only way of bringing success to this situation.   The UN is not an independent, altruistic institution.   It is merely the sum of its parts.   Do you honestly believe that the nation states that compose the General Assembly (and especially the Security Council) check their national interests at the doors in New York?   The UN in another place for realpolitik to be carried out by the powers of the globe.   It is apparent that French and German opposition to the war was an attempt to galvanize Europe behind Paris and Berlin to create a political force that could offset the power of the American Hegemon (an effort that failed).   As well, seedy as it sounds, economic interests in the form of the multi-billion dollar petroleum industry can find their interests added to the fray.   We are eager to point fingers at Haliburton, but there is no denying the TFE didn't have its fingers in the pie as well.   And what of Russia, who has always seen the area as its own backyard full of clients to support its military exports, or China, always eager to parry the Americans, and eager to quit the criticisms when their precious economic benefits were threatened.   The UN is simply another stage for that dirty game of international politics; I fail to understand why people feel the urge to see politics through a UN filter as pure and righteous.

As well, I feel the failure to successfully resolve SC Resolution 1441 only continues to demonstrate the fact the United Nations cannot be the bearer of the national interest of Canada.   It is simply too fickle, inconsistent and susceptible to erratic policy decisions (Iraq on the disarmament committee comes to mind).   We should use it as a tool, and if it fails, look somewhere else to achieve our goals.

Take for example the Korean War.   What if SC had turned down the decision to intervene?   The only reason it didn't was due to the fact that the Soviets were boycotting and China had yet to emerge.   What if America had decided to lead a coalition to Korea in support of the Truman Doctrine without the support of the UN.   Most people do not care that the mission was a UN one; the democratic prosperity of South Korea is a testament to the fact that intervention proved to be the better path, especially when compared alongside their xenophobic neighbours to the North.   Ironically, South Korea was slow to move to a liberal democracy, ensuring that the foundations were properly laid first.   Perhaps this should point out to us the folly of rushing Afghanistan and Iraq, two of the 20th centuries most undemocratic states, to a representative government, but alas, that is another debate altogether.



> Since apparently everyone disagrees with me about my opinion, and I've argued my point to hell and back, I'm just curious as to why Canadian involvement in Iraq would be beneficial for us and why everyone here thinks we should go.



The fact that we are at war always worked for me.


----------



## Guardian (22 Jun 2004)

nomercy,

It's fairly clear that you fundamentally dislike the US (or, at least, its government and policy). There are, however, certain irrefutable and unchangeable facts that must be faced when discussing Canadian policy:

1. The US is our geographic neighbour, and our largest trading partner. Our economic prosperity is based on good relations with the Yanks. Economic prosperity is the underpinning of national power, and therefore the best guarantee of our own sovereignty.

2. The US is, like it or not, the world's only superpower. The EU is still disunited from a military and foreign affairs point of view, China isn't there yet, and the UN - I've already made my opinion clear. Therefore, international peace and security (which is clearly a Canadian national interest) depends on the actions of the US. Ergo, we must be able to influence them.

3. As a (relatively) weak middle power, it is easier to influence a friend than an enemy. Friendly relations with the US are vital. You can bet your life that the Brits have far more influence over US policy than we do right now, and that because they put their troops in harm's way. Furthermore, we don't have the resources to defend ourselves BY ourselves, and never will. Like it or not, we need American help, and the only way that help will be provided on OUR terms and in a manner that respects our sovereignty is IF WE TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT. Otherwise, in a crisis, they'll still help, but they may not ask permission before the 82nd Airborne lands in Canmore to root out Al-Quaeda in the Rockies.

4. Therefore, juvenile complaining about the US track record is irrelevant, whether or not it may be justified. We can't pick or change our neighbors, and we can't wish away the present geostrategic situation because it'd uncomfortable. Your prescription for Canadian foreign policy would make us into another Switzerland - nice place to visit, but irrelevant on the world stage.

Nomercy, over to you.


----------

