Should Canada Go To Iraq?

[gladius]

If they had to put the fear of imminent death into the populations of their countries, then they lied. There was no reason to be afraid. I will never support a government that lies to their citizens to start a war... that was a trick that the Nazis used to justify their wars.

Fear of imminent death is not necesarly always a bad thing. If the politicians in France had put the fear of imminent death into their people when Hitler was still weak during the mid 1930's, then they would have saved the lives of about 40 million people, including alot of their own. But instead they chose to think the way you do.

 

[Whispering Death]

Again, I won't say what Canada "should" do. I'm an American and have no reason to tell canadians what is best for them.

However, I will say that I would like Canada more if they sent troops.

 

[Morten]

What do YOU know about Canada, Morten? Have you even been there?:roll: As if you would know anything about the MOTIVATION of an entire nation. Ridiculous.

so offensive ey?

well... Considering how the world looks at the Iraq war today i doubt that Canada (or almost ANY country) will get involved... it is ofc possible, but i doubt it.

 

[Missileer]

This was a US show. Now Damien, I know that the "war on terror" catchphrase has been trumpeted from the rooftops since WMD could no longer be used.

If the War on Terror is simply a catch phrase to you, then you are sadly mistaken. Since Canada has a superpower at it's borders, it doesn't have to do anything while other smaller Country allies are dieing face dow in the desert. I call it shameful.

The war on terror was meant to punish those who had attacked the US, and I understand and agree with that position.

Wrong again. The War on Terror was to stop a wholesale slaughter in the EU and America. Revenge was also a pretty good motivation, unless you look at the deaths of 3000 innocent people as a "position."

However, if you look at the information concerning Iraq and terrorism, there is no information that ties Iraq to terrorism or to 9/11. Now, did S. Hussein attack his own people? Yes. Did he attack Iran and Kuwait? Yes. Was he the scumbag that you claim he was? Yes. Does that justify the war that the US launched? IMO, even though you won't like this, no it does not.

Does it bother you that most if not all of the atrocities you mentioned involved the use of WMDs? There have been no signs found in Iraq that Hussein destroyed any of their WMDs.

The US has supported many other questionable governments, including some guy named Saddam Hussein. He was not a nicer guy 30 years ago.

And Western Europe in 1941 and before. There were American pilots serving in the Canadian Air Force before WWII began. There were Merchant Marine ships running the gauntlet of U-boats to get food and supplies to Britain, without which they would have not survived, IMO.

One statement that you wrote was very interesting: "That President Bush and Prime Minister Blair had to put the fear of imminent death into their people to get them to support a war to remove a man from office who is arguably the most evil dictator since Stalin is a sad statement about what has happened to the world since 1945." If they had to put the fear of imminent death into the populations of their countries, then they lied.

So you believe the information that all Countries were getting from different sources of intelligence agencies was not enough for a preemptive strike even though the USA, Germany, France, Great Britain, all agreed that the guy had WMDs and was either about to use them or pass them to terroists?

There was no reason to be afraid. I will never support a government that lies to their citizens to start a war... that was a trick that the Nazis used to justify their wars. I see even less reason for my country to support the war if it was based on a lie.

Maybe you would prefer a Government that doesn't bother with trying to control their citizens with lies, propaganda, or any passive means. Saudi and most of the Middle East simply lop off a limb or two, if you're lucky, to get co-operation from their people.

Look, I'm not blaming any Country who chooses not to cross the line to fight for their way of life and very existence. It's a bitter pill to to have to swallow to put our kids out in battle for a war that involves the entire modern World. America was born of fire and steel so battle is nothing new to us. If you believe that you are not threatened by this particular enemy, then by all means, keep your Kids at home. I'd rather die for freedom than to have to live like that, but that's just me.

 

[Yoman]

Even if we wanted to go do you really think that the Canadian military as is can really support 2 full fledged task force (1 in Afganistan and 1 in Iraq) ?

 

[Dean]

I figured I would kick up a hornet's nest, but boy, I never figured that the nest would be this big. Oh, well I gotta start somewhere, so here I go. I'll start with Damien's question about Iraqi sponsorsip of terror. Now, I have a very good memory most of the time, and I even remember when Al Qaida was founded and why. They started (with US clandestine sponsorship, and rightfully so) as a reply to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After the Soviets retreated, Al Qaida stuck around, and they thought that the Americans abandoned the Afghans to poverty after the Russians left. They then saw the the US "attacking" (my quotes) other muslims and supporting Israel, so they decided that they had a new enemy. Now here's the funny thing. Before 9/11, there is very little evidence that Al-Qaida was active anywhere, outside of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, althought since 9/11 many previous attacks have been blamed on Al-Qaida due more (I believe) to overwhelming media attention and the lack of other suspects. (The we-don't-know-whodunnit-so-it-must-have-been-them syndrome) Before 9/11, Al-Qaida remained active in Afghanistan and trained their people and sent them all over the world to start cells, many of which (I believe) will never activate.
Then, along comes the Iran Iraq war. Now, what is Al-Qaida's (A-Q) reaction to this? This is a tough one, because they had to support Iran. Why? First of all, they are no friends of Saddam Hussein. They consider him an apostate worthy only of death, and secondly, Iran is close to what they consider to be a "true" Islamic state.
Iran won the war, A-Q is happy, the good guys won. Along comes the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. This one is a little tougher for A-Q. According to the Koran (at that time, A-Q was still sort of following it) it is a mortal sin for one Muslim to kill another. So they saw it as the apostate (Iraq) attacking the American lackeys (Kuwait) and they probably thought it was kinda funny. Then something happened that A-Q and Iraq never suspected. The US decided to protect its interests militarily. Now this one A-Q really did not like. They did not like seeing "infidels" in their holy lands, they thought it was awful that the US was overtly supporting the rich lazy Kuwaitis when they had abandoned the poor Afghans, etc, etc, etc. How did they respond to their Iraqi muslim brothers when the first Gulf War finished? They did absolutely nothing. Their goals and those of Saddam Hussein were similar with regards to the US, but in every other aspect, they differed. Finally, when it became apparent that the US was going to attack Iraq, a low level meeting did take place, but nothing came of it.
Now here, I am going to share my analysis of that situation and the reason for the meeting. I believe that A-Q went to the Iraqis saying, "Look, we agree that something has to be done about these damn yankees (my apologies to the NY baseball team) so what do you think we can do?" Iraq's reply was simple. "Do what you can, we have nothing to offer you." And that was true. The embargo had taken it's toll, and more importantly, the WMDs that Iraq possessed had been expended... against the Iranians and the Kurds. They had none left. Proof, you ask? Well, agents from at least three intelligence agencies and probably many more searched the country, then The UN weapons inspectors (and don't try to tell me they were inefficient... they were not) searched, then after ther invasion, special forces from the US and Britain searched... and found nothing more than some long-emptied rocket warheads. Now the fact remains that all of this searching was done from around 1995 on and the in depth searches from 2003 have turned up nothing. In addition, we know that Saddam Hussein never used any WMDs since he attacked his own citizens with them. Highly probable conclusion? He has none left.
Now, many will say but hey, what about the weapons he bought with the oil-for-food scandal. There is no evidence proof or even questioning along the lines that weapons, money or any resources ever went from Iraq to sponsor terror attacks anywhere outside his borders. Now the White House has stated so often that the war in Iraq is another battle in the war on terror that many Americans now believe it. But seriously, think about it. When did Hussein ever sponsor a terrorist attack outside of Iraq?
Many people, (interestingly, mostly Americans) have attacked my positions with the reply that terror can strike anywhere, and that I am being cowardly in trying to avoid the war. Sorry, guys, but that is balderdash. I remember very well the reasons that President Bush Jr. cited for going to war in 2003, and the "war on terror" was an afterthought. The two phrases that he must often used were "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Threat to the Security of the United States" But the problem was that the coalition from Gulf War I Knew that the two claims that President Bush made could not be true. And remember there were 32 countries, including Canada, involved in Gulf War 1. In Gulf War 2, there were only 2. We and France were not the only ones who felt this way.
After the war, the CIA admitted the same thing. It was at that time, and only at that time that the president started to use the "War on Terror" catchphrase. But I will forever believe that this war was fought on a mistaken premise, or a half truth, or a lie. Canadians are fighting and dying in the war on terror. If you don't believe me, check media releases from 3 weeks ago in Kandahar. We are in Afghanistan and we will stay the course there, because we also believe it to be the main battle of the war on terror. Iraq was not, and that is why Canadians should not be going there.

In closing, I would like to ask you all for a small favour. I have noticed that many of the replies to my 2 original posts were quite angry. Please remember that I have never accused anyone other than the US gov't of anything. I do not hold Americans responsible for the actions of your government, and if I were American and still in the service, I would also ship out and do my duty to the best of my ability. I have always stated my opinions in a respectful manner, providing proof when I can and stating when my opinions could not be supported. I would ask all of you to please do the same. It makes the debates far more open and interesting if we do. Thanks.

Dean the currently unpopular.

 

[Damien435]

A-Q attacked the World Trade Center before, years later Osama was captured in Sudan and the Sudanese made an excellent proposition to the US. "We will give him to you and you may do with him what you with." This came after the first WTC attack, after the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, and after the attacks on the US Embassies in Kenya and.... Tanzania(?). Then President Clinton turned the offer by Sudan down saying "We do not want to become involved with international terrorism."

WTF!?

A-Q had already hit US interests around the world multiple times, claimed responsibility for them, and was on the FBI's Most Wanted List, Clinton said no because the US was not hit at home and so long as they only struck at US military interests and installations in some poor country who cares, right? (Ever wonder why I say Democrats are destroying America? There's one very good example.)

My point? Years later A-Q attacked America in what has become known around the world as 9/11. 3,000 Americans dead, 3,000 families devastated, a city was paralyzed by fear, all flights over American skies were cancelled and for the first time since 1920 not a single commercial aircraft was flying. For three days the FAA would not allow aircraft to fly, all sporting events for almost an entire week stopped, businesses were closed, schools shut down (in the NY area, others tried to pretend nothing had happened but when a kid runs around the halls yelling "Holy :cen:! WWIII just started!" you tend to put things together quite quickly.), the White House was evacuated, Army and Marine special forces were running around the White House lawn as they evacuated key personel, and the President was forced to take a very long detour from Florida, to Texas, to Omaha, and then to Washington. All this and more could have been prevented but Clinton did not want to get involved.

I can assure you, someone somewhere is out there plotting against America and all of the West in general as we sit here and argue. You may go ahead and try hiding behind the Atlantic but as America has found out "she (the Atlantic) aint so big as she used to be." and one day Canada will have their own terrorist attacks to deal with. Then your choices will be A.) Go on the offensive and get those who have wronged you and any who intend to do so in the future or B.) Do what Spain did and belly up.

BTW, there were more than 2 nations involved in the second gulf war. I believe the number is 11.

More to come after work. (pertaining to the History of Al Qaeda, the Iran-Irag War, and Desert Storm.)

 

[Dean]

Fear of imminent death is not necesarly always a bad thing. If the politicians in France had put the fear of imminent death into their people when Hitler was still weak during the mid 1930's, then they would have saved the lives of about 40 million people, including alot of their own. But instead they chose to think the way you do.

C'mon, gladius, that makes no sense. You are looking a a different situation with 20/20 hindsight. The French government did put fear into their population. The result was the greatest defensive fortifications that the world has ever seen. They could well have bankrupted France. The only result of it was to make Belgium the first target of Nazi Germany on the way to France. France was afraid. France did react far before the war started, and they were ready in every respect for it. It made no difference.
If you are going to use historical examples to try to prove your points, make sure you know your history. European history 1934-39 is fascinating subject, and learning it is a good idea. However, accurate comparisons with current situations are few and far between.

Dean.

Gawd, I hope I do not get caught in multiple debates. I hate typing!!!

A-Q attacked the World Trade Center before, years later Osama was captured in Sudan and the Sudanese made an excellent proposition to the US. "We will give him to you and you may do with him what you with." This came after the first WTC attack, after the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, and after the attacks on the US Embassies in Kenya and.... Tanzania(?). Then President Clinton turned the offer by Sudan down saying "We do not want to become involved with international terrorism."

WTF!?

Well, I think I'll leave that one alone. It truly was a goof of major proportions, somewhere along the lines of I-never-had-sex-with-that-woman, but far far worse.

A-Q had already hit US interests around the world multiple times, claimed responsibility for them, and was on the FBI's Most Wanted List, Clinton said no because the US was not hit at home and so long as they only struck at US military interests and installations in some poor country who cares, right? (Ever wonder why I say Democrats are destroying America? There's one very good example.)

They did launch some minor attacks against embassies here and there. However, although they have claimed "credit" for some attacks, there is still not a shred of evidence that I have seen or heard of that ties A-Q to some of the African embassy attacks or to Beirut. Personally, I still believe that Beirut was a Hezbollah job, but they are/were too much in the firing line to take credit for it. It was done, their friends A-Q took the heat for it, but the important thing to them all was the the Marines left.

My point? Years later A-Q attacked America in what has become known around the world as 9/11. 3,000 Americans dead, 3,000 families devastated, a city was paralyzed by fear, all flights over American skies were cancelled and for the first time since 1920 not a single commercial aircraft was flying. For three days the FAA would not allow aircraft to fly, all sporting events for almost an entire week stopped, businesses were closed, schools shut down (in the NY area, others tried to pretend nothing had happened but when a kid runs around the halls yelling "Holy :cen:! WWIII just started!" you tend to put things together quite quickly.), the White House was evacuated, Army and Marine special forces were running around the White House lawn as they evacuated key personel, and the President was forced to take a very long detour from Florida, to Texas, to Omaha, and then to Washington. All this and more could have been prevented but Clinton did not want to get involved.


All true. However, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

I can assure you, someone somewhere is out there plotting against America and all of the West in general as we sit here and argue. You may go ahead and try hiding behind the Atlantic but as America has found out "she (the Atlantic) aint so big as she used to be." and one day Canada will have their own terrorist attacks to deal with. Then your choices will be A.) Go on the offensive and get those who have wronged you and any who intend to do so in the future or B.) Do what Spain did and belly up.

We have been the target of plots. We have reacted. Our troops are in Afghanistan, and we have NEVER followed the Spanish example. My only argument is that the war on terror had nothing to do with Iraq

BTW, there were more than 2 nations involved in the second gulf war. I believe the number is 11.

True. But how many of them sent meaningful amounts of troops that went in the line of fire on the ground?

More to come after work. (pertaining to the History of Al Qaeda, the Iran-Irag War, and Desert Storm.)

You're at work??? Nyeah Nyeah na Nyeah Nyeah!!!!!!!
(my mature side...)
Dean The less and less popular, minute by minute.

Even if we wanted to go do you really think that the Canadian military as is can really support 2 full fledged task force (1 in Afganistan and 1 in Iraq) ?

Nope.

Dean.

If the War on Terror is simply a catch phrase to you, then you are sadly mistaken. Since Canada has a superpower at it's borders, it doesn't have to do anything while other smaller Country allies are dieing face dow in the desert. I call it shameful.

So are we. Check the news three weeks ago from Kandahar.

Wrong again. The War on Terror was to stop a wholesale slaughter in the EU and America. Revenge was also a pretty good motivation, unless you look at the deaths of 3000 innocent people as a "position."

Yes. But my point, as I said many times, is what did this have to do with Iraq?

Does it bother you that most if not all of the atrocities you mentioned involved the use of WMDs? There have been no signs found in Iraq that Hussein destroyed any of their WMDs.

Hussein did not destroy his WMDs. He used them.

And Western Europe in 1941 and before. There were American pilots serving in the Canadian Air Force before WWII began. There were Merchant Marine ships running the gauntlet of U-boats to get food and supplies to Britain, without which they would have not survived, IMO.

Very good. Now remember that the US government did little aside from lend-lease, and the US military bravely did nothing for three years while the rest of the Allies, Britain and Canada included, were fighting a world war. In most people's history books, WW II started in 1939!

So you believe the information that all Countries were getting from different sources of intelligence agencies was not enough for a preemptive strike even though the USA, Germany, France, Great Britain, all agreed that the guy had WMDs and was either about to use them or pass them to terroists?

No. We (including the US, apparently) were all getting good information from multiple sources. Then, the White House decided to mis-interpret it to have an excuse to go to war. In this light, can you really fault other countries for not wanting to get involved?

Maybe you would prefer a Government that doesn't bother with trying to control their citizens with lies, propaganda, or any passive means. Saudi and most of the Middle East simply lop off a limb or two, if you're lucky, to get co-operation from their people.

Every government lies. The problem is that in many cases, they should not have to. If I have a good reason to go to war, I tell my people. If they say no, that's it, it's over. We all went to war together in WW I, WW II Korea, and Afghanistan. In the meantime, Canada has been in the forefront of more peacekeeping operations than I can count in countries most Americans have probably never heard of. Every time, it was for a good reason, and the Canadian government never had to lie about it, and all of those deployments were supported by the Canadian public. The only two wars that we have not supported were Vietnam, (actually we did, our role was crucial but it was not military, except for a very short period) and Iraq. And yet, you still complain.

Look, I'm not blaming any Country who chooses not to cross the line to fight for their way of life and very existence. It's a bitter pill to to have to swallow to put our kids out in battle for a war that involves the entire modern World. America was born of fire and steel so battle is nothing new to us. If you believe that you are not threatened by this particular enemy, then by all means, keep your Kids at home. I'd rather die for freedom than to have to live like that, but that's just me.

So would I. But I am not willing to die for a government that lies to me. Defending freedom is a good reason to go to war. But you cannot be selective about it. If you want to defend freedom, why hasn't the US gone to war against China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar, North Korea, Syria, Jordan, etc, etc etc? Iraq was below the radar until they invaded Kuwait. They had nothing to do with Al Qaida. They had no more WMDs. We and many others did not feel there was any need to get involved. Saddam Hussein was fully contained as it was.

Dean:jump: .

 

[Damien435]

C'mon, gladius, that makes no sense. You are looking a a different situation with 20/20 hindsight. The French government did put fear into their population. The result was the greatest defensive fortifications that the world has ever seen. They could well have bankrupted France. The only result of it was to make Belgium the first target of Nazi Germany on the way to France. France was afraid. France did react far before the war started, and they were ready in every respect for it. It made no difference.
If you are going to use historical examples to try to prove your points, make sure you know your history. European history 1934-39 is fascinating subject, and learning it is a good idea. However, accurate comparisons with current situations are few and far between.

Dean.

Gawd, I hope I do not get caught in multiple debates. I hate typing!!!

Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. By doing so, the Germans would have been breaking with their traditional route of invading France, entering through Belgium (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, etc.). French ignored this though, and put all their effort into these defenses.

All true. However, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

All I can say to that is once again it goes back to the “War on terror, and all those who would use it as a weapon.” Oh yeah, and also preventing another 9/11.

We have been the target of plots. We have reacted. Our troops are in Afghanistan, and we have NEVER followed the Spanish example. My only argument is that the war on terror had nothing to do with Iraq.

See above.

True. But how many of them sent meaningful amounts of troops that went in the line of fire on the ground?

See, I ask the same question in regards to Canada sending troops to Iraq. It is merely a token gesture of aid, and like the others would not amount to anything more.

Very good. Now remember that the US government did little aside from lend-lease, and the US military bravely did nothing for three years while the rest of the Allies, Britain and Canada included, were fighting a world war. In most people's history books, WW II started in 1939!

And now who is the one trying to hide behind the Atlantic? I’ll give you a hint, it is not the US.

Every government lies. The problem is that in many cases, they should not have to. If I have a good reason to go to war, I tell my people. If they say no, that's it, it's over. We all went to war together in WW I, WW II Korea, and Afghanistan. In the meantime, Canada has been in the forefront of more peacekeeping operations than I can count in countries most Americans have probably never heard of. Every time, it was for a good reason, and the Canadian government never had to lie about it, and all of those deployments were supported by the Canadian public. The only two wars that we have not supported were Vietnam, (actually we did, our role was crucial but it was not military, except for a very short period) and Iraq. And yet, you still complain.

See, umm, about Canada’s peacekeeping thing, most Americans are only familiar with the Peacekeepers in Rwanda, in which the Peacekeepers stood by while the Rwandan’s slaughtered each other. Obviously Canada will likely have some success stories with their peacekeeping forces, but then again so does the US.

So would I. But I am not willing to die for a government that lies to me. Defending freedom is a good reason to go to war. But you cannot be selective about it. If you want to defend freedom, why hasn't the US gone to war against China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar, North Korea, Syria, Jordan, etc, etc etc? Iraq was below the radar until they invaded Kuwait. They had nothing to do with Al Qaida. They had no more WMDs. We and many others did not feel there was any need to get involved. Saddam Hussein was fully contained as it was.

Now listen up because you probably won’t see me say this very often. (Partially because I think it is quite obvious.) The United States of America are not “all powerful” and we do not feel like starting WWIII. Tell me, how long does the world have before everyone dies in a nuclear exchange between America and China? 20? 30 minutes? Supposedly the US is already overextending our forces and lots of people like to compare us to Rome because of it, this is horse hockey. Like Rome we have quite a few troops in France, Germany, Italy and parts of Eastern Europe, unlike Rome though the US is not in Europe and these forces are not charged with protecting the border from invasion by the “barbarians” and I can’t recall one instance where American troops from Europe marched on Washington and deposed the President.

We had to start somewhere and I think Iraq was chosen for several reasons.
-Saddam still being in power was a constant reminder of the failure by the coalition forces in Desert Storm.
-Iraq is a nation with the potential to grow into a regional power, economically and militarily. (I think I spelled that last word wrong, but you guys get the point, I hope.)
-President George W. Bush would without a doubt remember that Saddam tried to kill his father, President George H.W. Bush.
Now, about Al-Qaeda. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and was poised to invade Saudi Arabia Osama made an offer to the Saudi family. He would bring his fighters from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia and they would protect Saudi Arabia, without the help of the US. He went to great lengths to say that his fighters could and would take care of Saddam’s Army. This offer was, obviously, rejected by the Saudi’s. They told him that there was no way Osama could do what he said he would, Saddam’s army had just emerged victorious from eight years of fighting with Iran, his army was the most powerful in the middle east and unlike Afghanistan there were not many valleys in Saudi Arabia where Osama’s men could repeatedly ambush Iraqi forces, like they could when they were fighting the Soviet’s.

Osama said that “If the infidels were allowed into the Holy Land they would never leave.” And he kind of has a point, US forces still operate from bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, our support for Israel is another reason.

Now, even if Osama is ultimately not responsible for the attacks on the US embassies and Marine Barracks in Beirut Clinton still should not have turned down the offer from Sudan, this was after all after the first attack on the World Trade Center.

 

[major liability]

Dean The less and less popular, minute by minute.

Don't worry, I pretty much agree with everything you've said so far.

Invading Iraq was stupid and I blame the administration for fudging over their manipulation of intelligence.

 

[Missileer]

As for which country was or was not involved in the attack on the WTC, most terrorists do not have borders. The exact geographical location where the enemy is located in the desert doesn't matter. All Jihadists in the World are terrorists and where we confront them doesn't matter to me, as long as they are met with the only thing they understand, force. They are equal opportunity killers Dean. If you haven't gotten the message yet, they hate the decadent West simply because we are breathing. They hate Europe, including Canada as much as America. When Mohammed Atta went to Germany to study architecture, the very idea that Europeans were pompous enough to design and build skyscrapers made him hate them.He joined a jihadist group right in Germany. This is a Worldwide war and you are standing right in the middle of it. Nothing that any infidel does can deter them from their ending your society by killing you and everyone remotely connected to you.

It doesn't matter where the US and Allies went to confront these people just as it doesn't matter to them whether Iraq or any other Country was attacked first. The end result is to be the extermination of all infidel countries in the World, regardless of whether they put up a fight or not.

 

[Dean]

Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. Snip to fit

The Maginot Line was the greatest defensive fortification that the world has ever seen. The Germans knew very well that they could not go through it, but Belgium did not want the French building it opposite their borders. In addition, it was so expensive that France could not have continued all the way to the Atlantic. Belgium also built a defensive line and told the French that the Germans would not pass. The biggest fort, Fort Eban Emael fell to a new tactic that the Germans invented especially for it, and no, it was not blitzkreig. Actually, it makes fascinating reading. But as I said, the French were as prepared for it as they could have been. Also keep in mind, if it had have been the US Army on the border of Belgium and France, they would have been crushed. The Germans were just too good.

See, I ask the same question in regards to Canada sending troops to Iraq. It is merely a token gesture of aid, and like the others would not amount to anything more.

And now who is the one trying to hide behind the Atlantic? I’ll give you a hint, it is not the US.

I still maintain that the War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq.
And how can we possibly be hiding behind the Atlantic when our forces are fighting in Afganistan? When and more importantly how did Iraq become the great battle in the War on Terror? The answer? It became the main battle of the War on Terror the moment the administration realized that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Before that, it was something completely different.

See, umm, about Canada’s peacekeeping thing, most Americans are only familiar with the Peacekeepers in Rwanda, in which the Peacekeepers stood by while the Rwandan’s slaughtered each other. Obviously Canada will likely have some success stories with their peacekeeping forces, but then again so does the US.

Yeah, but what about the 30-some-odd others? As for Rwanda, the peacekeepers were also slaughtered, which was the reason that no one sent anymore troops. Nobody was willing to commit troops for a country that was not worth anything. I guess it's too bad that Rwanda has no oil.

(SNIP TO FIT)we do not feel like starting WWIII.

True, enough, WW III is not really a good idea. However, all I was trying to point out was that the US has a long history of supporting dictators as long as their politics were more to the right than to the left. About two years ago, I was in New Hampshire and I got into a conversation with a Vietnam vet about 9/11. When he realized that I am Canadian, he asked me why so many people hated the US. I found this strange, but he went on to tell me that he and many others don't get access to foreign media and differing opinions. I replied that the US tends to treat other countries very selectively. His reply was a blank stare. I went on to say that US foreign policy was not to defend freedom, it was to make the world free for US corporations to make profits wherever they wanted to. He gave me a hard look, and said, "yeah, you're right." For example, in Chile, the US helped overthrow a democratically elected, left centrist socialist government and activley supported the right-wing brutal dictatorship that replaced it. The world has not forgotten about this or other dictators that the US defended in the name of freedom, including, as I stated earlier, Saddam Hussein himself. I would just love it if the US tried harder to practice what it preaches.

We had to start somewhere and I think Iraq was chosen for several reasons.
-Saddam still being in power was a constant reminder of the failure by the coalition forces in Desert Storm.

What failure? The objective of Desert Storm was not to depose Saddam Hussein. It was the removal of his army from Kuwait, and the entire coalition was on the same page with this. Some members of the coalition did want to go farther, but it was agreed to stop, because the coalition would have fallen apart if the coalition forces had advanced to Bagdad. I must underline one fact, deposing Saddam Hussein was not the objective of Desert Storm. Desert Storm was successful in all respects.

-Iraq is a nation with the potential to grow into a regional power, economically and militarily. (I think I spelled that last word wrong, but you guys get the point, I hope.)

You spelled it right. Again though, I state that Iraq under Hussein was unable to do anything of the kind. Half of Iraqi airspace was a no fly zone, coalition aircraft could overfly Iraq at will, weapons entering Iraq were few and far between, inspectors were going all over looking for WMDs, and they had no navy, they had no air force and what was left pf their army was impotent Their army had fought and lost two wars, suffering huge losses at the same time. Much of their infrastructures were also shattered in those two wars. They were unable to export enough oil to pay for the re-building of any of this. So, how do you figure they could become a economic or military power again? Like I said, Hussein was contained... fully contained. He was caught in a trap called Iraq, and he could not have done much more than make noise.

-President George W. Bush would without a doubt remember that Saddam tried to kill his father, President George H.W. Bush.

I'm not going to make friends with this one, but here goes. The US led the coalition in 1993. Although war was never declared, a state of war existed, and Iraq then withdrew from Kuwait. There was no peace agreement, therefore, a state of war still existed between Iraq and the US. ((and Canada for that matter.) Technically the state of war still exists and will continue to do so until the recognized government of Iraq signs a peace treaty.) Because a state of war existed, Iraq was within its rights to attempt an assasination attempt on the president. They were at war and the president was the head of state of the enemy. It was no more a terrorist attack than were the opening salvoes of Gulf War 2. Those strikes were designed to decapitate the Iraqi government. It seems to me that if an assassination attempt against the president is terrorism, so were the opening attacks of Gulf War 2 and all of the strikes that targeted Hussein. (particularly the restaurant in the middle of a civilian area of Bagdad)

Now, about Al-Qaeda. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and was poised to invade Saudi Arabia Osama made an offer to the Saudi family. He would bring his fighters from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia and they would protect Saudi Arabia, without the help of the US. He went to great lengths to say that his fighters could and would take care of Saddam’s Army. This offer was, obviously, rejected by the Saudi’s. They told him that there was no way Osama could do what he said he would, Saddam’s army had just emerged victorious from eight years of fighting with Iran, his army was the most powerful in the middle east and unlike Afghanistan there were not many valleys in Saudi Arabia where Osama’s men could repeatedly ambush Iraqi forces, like they could when they were fighting the Soviet’s.

Good decision by the Saudis. I must admit however, that I never heard of that request by A-Q.
Iraq never beat Iran. If anything, the opposite happened. The Iraqi objective at the beginning of the war was total control of the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway. They took it, then lost it. They never got it back, and Iran pushed all Iraqi troops out of Iran, with the exception of some small pockets near the border. Some people describe it as a stalemate, which I never understood. Iran achieved its objectives. Iraq did not. Both countries were bled dry by the war. It was a long and brutal affair, and I believe that Iraq's army came out worse. Iran did suffer more casualties, but they had more to lose. In the end, both armies were gutted, with the exception of some Revolutionary Guard divisions around Bagdad. They did manage to re-build enough to invade Kuwait, but then again, they could have done that with one division. They could have gone a bit farther into Saudi Arabia as well, due to the fact that Saudi is so sparsely populated. But they could not have rivaled Iran.

Osama said that “If the infidels were allowed into the Holy Land they would never leave.” And he kind of has a point, US forces still operate from bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, our support for Israel is another reason.

He made that statement, then he made sure that it would come true. Ironic isn't it?

Now, even if Osama is ultimately not responsible for the attacks on the US embassies and Marine Barracks in Beirut Clinton still should not have turned down the offer from Sudan, this was after all after the first attack on the World Trade Center.

Here again, we are in complete agreement. But I think you have the time-line wrong. Bush was President at the time of 9/11, so Clinton could not have known what Bin Laden was up to. 20/20 hindsight is a great revealer of mistakes, and Clinton was very intelligent for a president. However, even he could not see into the future.

Dean, the still unpopular...

 

[gladius]

C'mon, gladius, that makes no sense. You are looking a a different situation with 20/20 hindsight. The French government did put fear into their population. The result was the greatest defensive fortifications that the world has ever seen. They could well have bankrupted France. The only result of it was to make Belgium the first target of Nazi Germany on the way to France. France was afraid. France did react far before the war started, and they were ready in every respect for it. It made no difference.
If you are going to use historical examples to try to prove your points, make sure you know your history. European history 1934-39 is fascinating subject, and learning it is a good idea. However, accurate comparisons with current situations are few and far between.

But the fear the French Government put into their citizens to build the Maginot line, is the same kind of fear you support. The fear that leads to inaction.

The fact that France should have invaded Germany in pre-emtive strike, but instead it chose to hide behind a wall because of the overwhelming pascifistic attitude of the time can draw accurate comparisons to the current situation.

Whether its a physical wall or somekind of political ideology its pertty much the same, they try to solve things at the end stage rather than go directly to the source and get it over with. As a results it festers for a long time and the boom you have something bigger than you can handle becuase you chose to hide behind something. History is the same in that it pretty much repeats itself the only difference are the minute details, the psychology behind it, which is human psychology still remains the same.

 

[Dean]

But the fear the French Government put into their citizens to build the Maginot line, is the same kind of fear you support. The fear that leads to inaction.

The fact that France should have invaded Germany in pre-emtive strike, but instead it chose to hide behind a wall because of the overwhelming pascifistic attitude of the time can draw accurate comparisons to the current situation.

Whether its a physical wall or somekind of political ideology its pertty much the same, they try to solve things at the end stage rather than go directly to the source and get it over with. As a results it festers for a long time and the boom you have something bigger than you can handle becuase you chose to hide behind something. History is the same in that it pretty much repeats itself the only difference are the minute details, the psychology behind it, which is human psychology still remains the same.

I don't support any fear. I support honesty. The Canadian government did not have to lie to anyone for any of the dozens of deployments we have done since Korea. I see no reason whatsoever to change that policy.

You can look at it that way if you want. But you are still not analyzing the historical context. The German invasion of WW I cost france dearly in both men and resources. While they did win, they had no possibility of doing so alone, and in fact, it took the all of the Allies a year and a half to chase Germany out of France. France also knew, even in 1932 that they were unable to build an army that would be capable of beating Germany. So they decided to do what they could. Then, as now, military doctrine dictated that the attacker most have a three to one advantage in order to have a chance of winning. So, France decided to raise that to ten to one. If the Wehrmacht had have attacked the Maginot line head on, they would have lost, in spite of their technical superiority. The French also trusted the Belgians, who promised them that the Germans would not pass through Belgium again. As I said in another post, check what happened at fort Eban Emael, it was a microcosm of what happened to the Belgian defences, although the other attacks did not display quite the brilliance of the attack on Eban Emael.
France was not hiding, nor were they trying to avoid reality. It is easy to think that if you look at that particular part of European history, but in its context, the comparison is less than ideal.
But there is one thing that you must remember. The French Government of the time did warn their people of the danger. The difference is that there was a real danger, so the government did not have to lie about it. However, after 9/11, Iraq was unable to do anything to the US, so the dire warnings from the White House about the WMDs and the fact that Iraq was a danger to the security of the US was untrue. There was no good reason to invade Iraq. Did it accomplish something? Yes, one thing, Saddam Hussein is no longer president of Iraq. Is the US safer today? I actually think that the answer to that question is... no!

Dean (The ever hopeful...)

 

[Dean]

As for which country was or was not involved in the attack on the WTC, most terrorists do not have borders. The exact geographical location where the enemy is located in the desert doesn't matter. All Jihadists in the World are terrorists and where we confront them doesn't matter to me, as long as they are met with the only thing they understand, force. They are equal opportunity killers Dean. If you haven't gotten the message yet, they hate the decadent West simply because we are breathing. They hate Europe, including Canada as much as America. When Mohammed Atta went to Germany to study architecture, the very idea that Europeans were pompous enough to design and build skyscrapers made him hate them.He joined a jihadist group right in Germany. This is a Worldwide war and you are standing right in the middle of it. Nothing that any infidel does can deter them from their ending your society by killing you and everyone remotely connected to you.

It doesn't matter where the US and Allies went to confront these people just as it doesn't matter to them whether Iraq or any other Country was attacked first. The end result is to be the extermination of all infidel countries in the World, regardless of whether they put up a fight or not.

Yes Missileer, I know all this. I got the message loud and clear back in 1972 when I was ten years old and NEVER forgot it. (yes I clearly remember Munich) I am not referring to the practices and hatreds of terrorist today. I am referring to Iraq and the War on Terror, and I am still waiting for hard evidence that Iraq had any relationship of any knd with any terrorist group. We already know that they did not have any with Al-Qaida.

Dean. (...that someday people...)

 

[Missileer]

I am referring to Iraq and the War on Terror, and I am still waiting for hard evidence that Iraq had any relationship of any knd with any terrorist group. We already know that they did not have any with Al-Qaida.

Well, you can check the latest death statistics of Allies and Iraqi citizens at the hands of "insurgents."

 

[Dean]

Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there besides me and major liability who are thinking along the same lines? I'd love to feel less lonely.

Dean. (..will like me again...)

 

[Knightraptor]

The way I see the whole situation is that I compare it to a car wreck. Whether we(Americans that is) like it or not Iraq has been basically a car wreck. But what is done is done. And any decent person wouldn't pull a hit and run in a car wreck, and everyone standing by doesn't just stand around and not help. If Canada(and other countries) won't do it for the US, they should at least try to help the Iraqis. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world and most people don't care about anyone but themselves(including Americans). I seem to want to help everyone all the time...whether thats good or bad i'm still trying to decide. But the Iraqis need help, and I think that other countries sending troops to help people improve their lives can only be a good thing.

 

[Damien435]

Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there besides me and major liability who are thinking along the same lines? I'd love to feel less lonely.

Dean. (..will like me again...)

Dean I totally agree with you.....

When/if you say that we just don't see eye-to-eye on most issues.

 

[mmarsh]

I think what Harper SAYS and what he DOES are two different things entirely. The Government of Paul Martin was tossed out largely by fellow liberals who refused to be associated with a party thats so corrupt, but much of the liberal government policies were actually popular. One of those popular policies was refusing to be G.Bush's patsy (Bush is EXTREMELY unpopular). If Harper were to send troops to Iraq in direct defiance of popular sentiment he too might be on the recieving end of a no-confidence vote. I cannot Imagine Harper commiting political suicide so early in the game.