Should Canada Go To Iraq?

Part 1

Dean said:
Sorry, I was really tired last night, so I could not type the message that I wanted to say, so here it is now.
The US went to war in Iraq on two premises: the first was that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat to US national security, and the second was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they could deploy at any time. As the most serious of these two charges was the one dealing with WMDs, it is the one I will discuss first.
The US had been claiming for a very long time that Iraq had WMDs and that they were continuing their nuclear development program. Both of these would have been in violation of UN resolutions, so the US gave itself the moral right to enforce the resolutions in question. At the time, the US beat the war drums loud enough for the world to hear in the hopes that other countries would join in, but unfortunately (for them) none did. A major group of countries, unofficially led by France, opposed the war, and France in particular was very vocal in this opposition. Now, at the time I found that very strange. At first I thought that France was waffling, simply trying to get out of a war, but then I remembered something else. The French, contrary to popular belief, have never been afraid of getting their hands wet, and in fact they have been very active militarily in Africa for a very long time. Were they afraid of going to war with Iraq? No, they were not, and they are one of the very few countries that is able to effectively project force beyond their borders. So why did the French actively oppose the war? Some said that they did not want to lose lucrative contracts with Iraq. This is pure horsehockey! The amount of business that France did with Iraq may have been far greater than that of the US, but it was hardly a reason to support Saddam Hussein. So what else?
I started reading around, and I noticed a pattern emerging. The French would make a statement, the US would try to counter it, and so on. Usually, when this happens some countries would believe one, and others believe the other, but this was not happening. In fact, every time France made a statement, it seemed that the other countries, including Canada, threw their support more towards the French position.
I am lucky in that I speak both English and French fluently, and while reading French press releases, an idea began to form in my head. The French knew something the US did not, but they could not share that information, or they had shared the info and the US simply ignored it or dismissed it out of hand. Now here I have to open a parenthesis. Many people believe that the CIA is the greatest intelligence gathering agency in the world. In and of itself, this is not true. IF you combine the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the FBI and others, then it is the greatest, but there are others, and some of those others have more influence in certain parts of the world than the CIA enjoys. One of the agencies that does have more influence in the Arab world is the French equivalent of the CIA, the DGSE. I know that the DGSE was active in that part of the world at the time, everyone was. What had the DGSE tumbled to?
The answer was simple. The DGSE and others, probably including the Canadian CSIS, had figured out that the Iraqis did not have any WMDs and were thus honour bound to support the UN position. This is particularly true of Canada. After all, we invented peacekeeping (our Prime Minister of the time won th eNobel Peace Prize for it) and we have participated in more peacekeeping missions than anyone else, it would have been very difficult for the Canadian government to suddenly set that aside and go to war on the basis of information that they knew to be false. Canada did go to Afghanistan, in fact it is now the Canadian contingent that is currently in charge of Kandahar, which is the hottest sector of Aghanistan. We also took part in Desert Shield and Desert Storm so it was not a lack of guts that kept us out. The Canadian government simply knew better.
I kept all this to myself for a long time, then suddenly I got the confirmation I had been seeking. When it became apparent that the US was never going to find WMDs in Iraq, they launched and inquiry to find out why the CIA had goofed so badly. The answer was astounding. The CIA claimed that they had never sent information to the effect that Iraq held any WMDs after the First Gulf War. They continued, stating that all the info that they had sent to the White House had been mis-interpreted to give the impression that Iraq had WMDs and thus give the White House the excuse they needed to go to war.
After having read all this, I feel that the war in Iraq was a mistake. It did have the effect of ridding the world of a dictator, but so what? The US has supported many dictators before, and in fact is still supporting some now, so saying that it made the world safer for democracy is (sorry to say) hypocritical. I do believe that the war in Afghanistan was justified, and that Al Qaida should be exterminated, but Iraq did not even have any ties with Al Qaida.
Given that the war was started on three false pretenses, (actually, more like 2 and a half) I do not feel that Canada should sent even one man to Iraq. I usually support American positions, but in this case, the US made a huge mistake that could even be classed by many as a crime against humanity. I do not think we (Canadians) should be participating in this.

Dean.
Click to expand...

Man, you miss so many points. It would take me months to explain all those to you. Let me just re-post some of my previous posts on the topic, though.

People forget that Bush's motivations for waging war on Iraq have always been THREE, and three reasons for wanting a military intervention had been clearly stated for months before 3/03.
1. Iraq has WMD
2.Iraq has links with terrorism- not just Al Qaeda, but with terrorism (which was true, Hamas, for instance, but Al Qaeda too if you read the 9/11 Commission Report)
3.Democracy hence peace. Bush agrees with the neocons that in order for peace to exist democracy has to be exported. He never concealed this aspect, people forget that. So many times did he present this motivation publicly before the outbreak of hostilities. So now it's not a post war strategy. It'always been that.

N.1 Don't you believe that the burden of the proof was on Saddam? Yes or no.
On the international scene other countries, like Ukraine, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and now Lybia, have agreed to accept UN and even other countries' inspectors. They honestly showed everything they had, they opened their bunkers, their facilities.
Saddam Hussein led the whole world into thinking that he had those weapons. He repeatedly said that. Even his closest advisors and top military aides thought they had those weapons. They were shocked at the eve of the war when they learned Saddam had been faking it for years.
Now you know he had had those weapons, he had used them and killed hundred of thousands, he kept saying he had them. The UN, Russia, Britain and France thought he had them too.
If he did not have them, why didn't it open the doors and proved it? Like others had done. The burden of the proof was on him.
He was just playing a game he got burned playing.
Next time he won't pretend to have a matchbox in his pocket if he doesn't I tell you.
N.2 Saddam had close ties with Hamas, and that is proved. About Al Qaeda-Saddam connections, my friend, we have tons of evidence. You just have to look.
Saddam Hussein had close ties with Hamas (he paid 25,000 $ to the family of each suicide bomber), he gave hospitality to Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas. The first had staged a terrorist attack on Rome airport causing dozens of victims, the second was involved in the Achille Lauro's cruise ship hijacking and the murder of handicapped American citizen Leon Clinghoffer in the cruelest way.
I didn't say Saddam had to do with 9/11, I say he had ties with Al Qaeda, and going to prove it.

(To be continued on next post)
 
Last edited:
Part 2

The United States is the country of the Free Press par excellence, so there is even a law, the Freedom of Information Act, that makes it mandatory for federal agencies to reply to journalists who ask for information on events or facts that are kept classified for national security reasons. It has recently happened that the Associated Press asked the Pentagon to explain why a certain Iraqi citizen is detained at Gitmo.
The DoD delivered to the AP a “summary of evidence” made up of all the transcripts of the prisoners interrogations.
From the summary it’s possible to learn that the Iraqi has admitted that in 1994 he was recruited in Baghdad by the Taliban, that once arrived in Afghanistan he associated himself with Al Qaeda, that he became a close aide of Osama Bin Laden and that eventually, “in the August of 1998, went to Pakistan together with an Iraqi Mukhabarat (Secret Services) man with the stated goal of attacking, with chemical bombs, the American and British embassies in Pakistan”.
It was not an incredible plan, given the fact that in the very same month Al Qaeda actually attacked American embassies in Eastern Africa causing 224 victims and 4 thousand wounded (The newspaper “Babel”, directed by Saddam’s son greeted Osama as an “Arab and Islamic Hero” on that very occasion).
In that very same month, Bill Clinton accused the Iraqi regime for having provided chemical weapons to Al Qaeda.
This is just the last element of a long line of information that, contrarily to what the European (and Canadian?) newspapers say, prove the connection between Baathist Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The second last is the one about an Iraqi agent who, in January 2000, arranged an operative meeting held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, with one of 9/11 hijackers.
Official documentations, including the ones released by the 9/11 Commission say that there actually was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
They don’t go as far as to explain how deep that connection was, but they leave zero doubts on the fact that there was a connection.
On the other hand, the reports on a Baghdad- Al Qaeda connection date back to a pre-Iraqi war era, back to 8 year before 9/11 and Bush’s election to the White House.
The first one to talk about it was Bill Clinton. In 1998 his Department of Justice, when they still believed Al Qaeda could be faced in the courts, open investigations on Bin Laden with these words: “Al Qaeda has reached an agreement with Iraq to not operate against that government, while on particular projects, which specifically include the development of weapons, Al Qaeda will cooperatively work with the government of Iraq”.
Osama himself, it was 1998, February 23, issued the fatwa launching jihad against the US making an esplicit reference not only to “the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia”, but also to the “ongoing aggression against the Iraqi people”, and to the “alliance between crusaders and sionists that inflicted heavy devastations to the Iraqi people, killing a huge number of them, more than a million”. For this, Bin Laden wrote, “it is an Islamic duty to attack the American Satan and his allies, so that they learn the lesson”.

(To be continued)
 
Part 3

Bin Laden was talking about the first Gulf War, the one with the UN brandmark and the approval of many Arab countries. Just like the London alqaidists don’t make any distinction between wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and exactly like Al Zarqawi never make it a problem to blow up the UN base in Baghdad killing 22 UN employees, Bin Laden doesn’t make any difference and believes it’s all part of the great war against the west and the moderate arab countries.
The Saddam defeated and abandoned by the other arab leaders (apart from Arafat) turned out to be a natural ally. Osama shared a common political plan with Saddam: Take over the whole arab world, chase the Americans and erase Israel.
But there’s more: It was Clinton the liberal, in 1998, who preemptively bombed a foreign country, Sudan, because it was developing together with Iraq chemical weapons to provide Al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, the then chief of anti-terrorism and today Bush’s archenemy, justified the bombings of the pharmaceutical facility of Shifa with these words: “The intelligence data link Bin Laden to the current responsibles of the factory, which are the Iraqi experts of nervine gas and Sudanese Islamic National Front”. On an email sent to the then National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke wrote that the presence of those Iraqis was “probably a direct outcome of the Iraq- Al Qaeda agreement”.
Nobody would ever question that, back then.
Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, interrogated by the 9/11 Commission, confirmed last year that the Sudanese facility “had to do with Bin Laden and with the Iraqi chemical weapons plan leadership”.
The relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda have been acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission as follows: “Bin Laden has looked for the possibility of a cooperation with Iraq when he resided in Sudan”. The bi-partisan Commission goes ahead: “In order to protect their own relations with Baghdad, the Sudanese arranged contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. A top rank officer from Iraq’s secret services went to Sudan three times, and met Osama Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden asked for large spaces for his training camps and assistance for weapons, but apparently Iraq never answered”. More: “The contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq went on also when Bin Laden went back to Afghanistan, but it doesn’ t seem like they brought to a collaborative relationship”. The Commission could not go any further with its inquiries because its task was only bound to 9/11, and this is why it doesn’t have “credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated in the attacks against America”, which is the attack on the Twin Towers. But the Commission does have evidence of meetings, contacts and exchange of intelligence.
Today, one year after that report, more confirmations begin to flow in, and they are weirdly ignored by the American journalists, with the exceptions of Stephen Hayes, author of “The Connection”, and author of a long and detailed reportage on more recent developments published by the Weekly Standard. Hayes told that a US intelligence base in Iraq is analyzing more than one million pages confiscated in the secret services offices after Saddam’s fall. In some of the first checked documentations they found that, starting in 1992, the Iraqi regime considered Bin Laden as an asset of its own secret services. It has been read that Saddam protected and hid the Iraqi who admitted he had prepared the bomb for the 1993 WTC attack.
It can be found that Saddam accepted Osama’s request of broadcasting anti-Saudi propaganda on State-owned Iraqi National Tv.
Hudayfa Azzam, son of Bin Laden’s right arm, said that “before the Iraqi war Saddam open armedly welcomed Al Qaeda members which had entered the country in large numbers to arrange a network that would oppose the occupation”.
King of Jordan Abdullah repeatedly stated that before the war his goverment asked Saddam to turn over Zarqawi, Jordan citizen.
On 1998, February 3, twenty days before the total war declaration on America due to the sufferings caused “to the Iraqi people”, Al Qaeda number 2 man, Ayman al Zawahiri, went to Baghdad to meet with Iraqi leaders. According to the weekly US News and World Report, now confirmed by the documentations found in Baghdad, he was given 300,000 $. The 9/11 Commission added that it found evidence that a few days after Osama’s fatwa two Al Qaeda affiliates “went to Iraq and met with secret services officers”. From Baghdad papers new evidence appears that one of the two affiliates stayed in town from March 5 to 16, in room # 414 at Mansour Hotel. The 9/11 Commission wrote that “a few months later an Iraqi delegation went to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban and also with Bin Laden”. According to the Commission these meeting were arranged by Al Zawahiri, “who had ties with the Iraqis”.
Zawahiri’s visit to Baghdad took place at the same time as one of the yearly Islamist meetings called Islamic People’s Conference, alike to those organized by the fundamentalist Hasan Al Turabi, architect of the Islamist Revolution in Sudan in 1989. The one of 1992 called for 500 Islamists to gather and transform Iraq into “the fortress of islamist jihad surrounded by atheist forces”. Saddam’s Islamist Conferences, started in 1983, regularly took place until the regime’s fall, and had the esplicit goal of involving laicists and islamists in the common fight against America. The Fourth Conference was opened by a message from Saddam depicting war with America as the war between “believers and infidels”. Saddam always tried to match the Islamic extremism with the arab-iraqi nationalism, since the Iran-Iraq war era.
All this exposes the fallacy of the “non-religious nature of Saddam’s regime”. After the 1991 defeat, the rais insisted for a strong islamist breakthru of Iraq well visible in the rhetorics, such as the ongoing references to jihad and the writing inserted in the middle of the flag “Allah is great”. In the Baghdad Great Mosque, inaugurated in 2002, he had 650 Koran pages shown, along with 20 liters of his own blood donated in 20 years.
As a result of the Clinton’s bombings on Baghdad in December 1998, which went on for 4 days, Saddam sent his most trusted agent, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet Bin Laden. Newspapers from around the world wrote about it. Even Italian most important newspaper made headlines “Saddam Hussein and Osama made an agreement”. Newsweek quoted an arab agent who said “Very soon you are going to witness a large number of terrorist attacks worldwide aimed at Western targets, led by Iraqis”.
Information was convergent: Osama wanted to move to Baghdad. Richard Clarke wrote very clearly that had Osama been aware of American plans on Afghanistan he would have very likely fled to Iraq.

I'm sorry it's the first time I post something this long.
 
Last edited:
Thanks IG, I just am not up to writing about how wrong the "party line" is concerning Iraq, AQ, etc. I have grown tired of contiually correcting these little misconceptions (or sometimes lies). I see some others have stepped up to the plate, which is good.
Dean, you are wrong. No flame happening here, just a statement of fact. I have already covered some of you points, and pointed out how wrong they are during previous posts. My posts also come with links to the information, something I would like to see you post so I can take a look see to find out where you get your background info. Even though I already suspect the sources, I would like to see you commit to them.
As far as the original question goes, If Canada wishes to get involved in Iraq, great, if not, no real loss. But eventually Canada, like the rest of the uncommited world, will have to chose sides. Two take no prisoners wars are already running, and another war the likes mankind has never seen is pushing the lid of pandora's box open.
 
Last edited:
Dean said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like I said you can call it what you want (honesty or whatever) its still the same as hidding behind a wall, instead of going after the source.

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.
Click to expand...

All that happened because of their mentality, which is the same mentality you display. If they had a different mentality which does just want to hide behind rethoric there wouldn't be a wall in the first place.

In fact the whole French war mentality of the period was anti-offense in nature. You keep bring up what France did when they did it because of their mentality, not due to their capability.

You forget that Germany didn't have a well equiped army, and limited number of men because they were forbidden to have it, due to the surrender terms. France had more men, better more heavily armored tanks, more planes. So they could have easily taken Germany.

They had the power to take Hitler out and install a more democratic government. They wouldn't have had to take over all of Germany just remove Hitler from power. Probably at that time alot of Germans would have supported them, since they were not all Nazis anyways. Your assesment of early 1930's pre-WWII Europe is completely wrong in the sense you are going by the action of France from the stand point of their mentality during the period, and its exactly that which let the war begin in the first place.

They just chose to build a wall and hoped the problem would go away, thats what happens when you don't treat something at the source.

Like I said originally they chose to go the path you are choosing of not doing any pre-emtive strikes and hide behind rethoric instead of doing the practical thing. Even your explanation shows that regardless of how strong your military is, that letting things fester and not dealing with it at the source can very well bite back later.

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.
Click to expand...
They were hiding, and like alot of countries today especailly in Europe they are avoiding reality. The comparison is ideal France and (even England had the power to stop Hitler when he was still at his weaker stages). Don't tell me they didn't have the military capability to do that the only thing stopping them was their mentality.


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.
Click to expand...

So just like France you would have hid behind a wall a waited till Saddam became a real danger, right? (1930's Europe)

Evidence from the capture Iraqi officials testify to the fact that Saddam was ready to re-build WMD's once sanctions had lifted.

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...)
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not, but you have forgotten already even the former number one supporter of terrorist Kahdaffi gave up his supply of WMD's. So already you could be wrong. Not to mention we probably killed alot of terrorist in Iraq that may have gone to the West but felt that it was easier to kill Westerners in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
IG, I hope your post will be read and, if needed, researched by non-believers. I read every word and it has been in print for years but ignored or just poo-pooed by people you will never convince until the glint of the sun off bayonets makes everything sparkling clear.
 
I have to lean with the Chief on this one. Even though the more boots the better in any conflict. I just would want to understand the motivation for the sudden interest for them to place troops in harms way.
There are MANY good debates and points of view in this topic.
Depending on what side of the fence one is on, you like/dislike Canada, France or others that sent OR did not send troops, monies or supplies one has to keep in mind that commiting THEIR citizens to a Military action is a decision that EACH Nation makes depending on their political and military analysis of the intel.
I can tell you first hand that Iraq is FAR from stable and could go any direction as the situation stands today and will be unstable for years to come.
 
Last edited:
Forrest_Gump said:
As far as the original question goes, If Canada wishes to get involved in Iraq, great, if not, no real loss. But eventually Canada, like the rest of the uncommited world, will have to chose sides. Two take no prisoners wars are already running, and another war the likes mankind has never seen is pushing the lid of pandora's box open.
Click to expand...
I completly agree here.

To me this isnt just about Iraq, it is far larger and more immense. There is war coming, the likes of that which we have never seen before. If only people knew what most of the Islamic world believes for the future, which even now they are taking steps to fullfill. Their absolute belief in this will make it happen regardless of consequence.

The extent of our success now will pretty much determine whether we can stop this war or not. Will we suceed? Most likely no, because in order to do so we would need the help of the entire Western world, which we don't have. So most likely it will happen no matter what. So are our efforts there wasted? No, if anything it has bought us time.
 
Italian Guy said:
Little by little...
Click to expand...
I have said it before, I will say it again.

Israel has the best intelligence agencies in the world and if they say this happened I believe them, and an Iraqi general stepping forth doesn't hurt their case either.

And Gladius, I agree with you here. From the time I have spent studying history I have drawn one conclusion: "There is always someone out there who wants what you have and is waiting till their chance comes to take it."
 
Guys, what is this "choose sides" crap? We have chosen sides. We are very active in Afghanistan (1 brigade, about 20% of our armed forces, last time I checked) When are you going to be satisfied?

:bang: Dean.

PS.. I can't spend much itme because I have a ton of real work to do. I should be back quite soon....
 
Being Canadian, I thought it was obvious. Our population is only one tenth of that of the US. Our Armed Forces are proportionally smaller. Someone else asked if we could support another deployment and I said no. I was not being facetious, it was a statement of fact. At the present time, a very large proportion of Canada's Army, Navy and Air Force are all deployed in the Indian Ocean (navy), the Gulf States (air force, maritime patrol out of an unnamed country), the Middle East, Afghanistan, Croatia, Bosnia and I think that's it for the moment. Even if we wanted to go, the cupboard is bare...

Dean.

Back to work..... (sigh)
 
Well Dean, since you seem to equate putting boots on the ground in SW Asia as the sole factor as have chosen a side, I really don't know what to say, other than "me thinks you missed the point".
 
Whatever your position is on the morals of the second iraqi war, many Iraqi's are grateful for the removal of the genocidal Hussien. They now need help to rebuild their country, uphold law and order, and sustain new freedoms and democracy. Australians for one would like to see our Commonwealth brothers along side helping. The opportunities for Canadians - especially their military - to help in humanitarian and security efforts are bountiful.
 
Wheather it be 1 or 1000 men Canada has don alot for this world in terms of helping in Wars or peacekeeping missions. We frigin invented peacekeeping, it was Lester Pearson's idea and he won the Noble Peace Prize for it. Heres a short list of just peacekeeping mission Canada has been involved in since 1947.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/peacekeeping/missions-en.asp


We also fought in the following wars: Boer War,WW1,WW2,Korea,First Gulf War, and Afghanistan.


Canada was one of the first nations to agree to condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and it quickly agreed to join the U.S.-led coalition. In August Prime MinisterBrian Mulroney sent the destroyers HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Athabaskan to enforce the trade blockade against Iraq. The supply ship HMCS Protecteur was also sent to aid the gathering coalition forces.
After the UN authorized full use of force in the operation Canada sent a CF-18 squadron with support personnel. Canada also sent a field hospital to deal with casualties from the ground war. When the air war began, Canada's planes were integrated into the coalition force and provided air cover and attacked ground targets. This was the first time since the Korean War that Canadian forces had participated in offensive combat operations.
Canada suffered no casualties during the conflict.

My last opinion (hopefuly) is that I think Canada has done its far share, and we should not be judged for not going to Iraq.
 
Has Canada ever partecipated in any combat operation that wasn't recognized by the UN?
Second question: Has Canada ever favored a war that the French opposed or opposed one the French were involved in?
Just asking here.
 
Italian Guy

The Canadian government has much closer ties to the UK than to France. Its ties to France on exist in a single province Quebec...

The Canadian Official Head of State is the King/Queen of England. There system of govornment is more related to English than French Parlement. There money has Queen Elisabeth II on it. There laws are based from British Law, there military is patterned on on the British Army including Red Coats and Bagpipes. Canada was British Colony for 300 years.

Canada sent 30,000 volenteers to the US Army during Vietnam War, 0 to the French in the same war. That number is much higher than American Draft dodgers that fled to Canada...

Canada entered both WWI and WWII way before the US did. 1915 vs 1917 and 1939 vs 1941 (really 1942) respectfully...
 
Thank you, mmarsh, but having been to Canada and stayed there for quite a while myself I was perfectly aware of the Canadian-UK ties. My questions regarded Canada's attitude with respect to French positions.
I was just curious to see how close to Paris Ottawa has been in the past 15 to 20 years. I humbly believe my questions haven't been addressed yet.
 
Canada sent 30,000 volenteers to the US Army during Vietnam War
Click to expand...


"Canada" did not send anyone to Vietnam. The "Canadians", along with any other Foreign National that fought with the US, crossed the border on their own and enlisted. They fought for reasons of their own, not those of their Governments.
In fact those that fought, and then later returned to Canada have been fighting years for the construction of a memorial to their fallen brothers and recognition by the Canadian Governement.


http://www.vwam.com/vets/allies/canadians.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top