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

[McG]

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 — 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[McG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Don‘t forget World War One.

 

[McG]

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. . . .

. . .

Ironically, the Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel in the Persian Gulf I mentioned earlier who are fighting terrorism will provide more support indirectly to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.

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

 

[McG]

Manley blasts Harper, critics

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

Ottawa — Deputy Prime Minister John Manley conceded yesterday that the government should have made its support clearer for coalition forces in Iraq — 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]

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]

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]

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

 

[nbk]

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]

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]

Ohhhhh boy!

 

[stukirkpatrick]

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]

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.