CanadianCombat
Active member
The new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper might send Canadian troops to Iraq. Do you think this is a good idea?
Should Canada Go To Iraq?
FutureDevilDog
Active member
Umm...Of course. It couldn't hurt having more troops helping out the US and the Coalition.
Whispering Death
Active member
I would like Canada a lot more if they sent troops.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
(Apologies to all our Canadian members)
I can't see Canada getting involved in the Iraq debacle. Canada is supposed to be allied with us but chose to sit out the original invasion and I can not see any advantage for sending their troops at this time.
Canada never completely repaid any of the loans from WWII and they would NOT be willing to come through with monies at this late date to help pay for men, materials and rebuilding without there being a 'Quid pro quo".
I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY TRADE BEING OFFERED TO CANADA FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION, HAVE YOU?
I can't see Canada getting involved in the Iraq debacle. Canada is supposed to be allied with us but chose to sit out the original invasion and I can not see any advantage for sending their troops at this time.
Canada never completely repaid any of the loans from WWII and they would NOT be willing to come through with monies at this late date to help pay for men, materials and rebuilding without there being a 'Quid pro quo".
I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY TRADE BEING OFFERED TO CANADA FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION, HAVE YOU?
msgtmedleyusmc
Active member
It would be great for the folks already there, but not such a good political move for the new government. Talking about it gets the message across that there is a new sheriff in town without the fallout when folks start coming home in flag draped coffins.
System Bolaget
Active member
Morten said:
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.
DefiantCdr
Active member
I think it would be great if Harper were to send troops to Iraq, but I doubt it'll happen. He'd loose to many votes :roll: politics :roll:
FULLMETALJACKET
MilForum Bad Apple
:thumb: true.
MightyMacbeth
I am Honor
The US needs more help in Iraq, and I am sure that with Canada, things would get done quicker.
It doesnt have to be with military, but anything!
For example, Kuwait is sending medical teams every now and then and medical health stuff.. under the protection of the American troops ofcourse.
It doesnt have to be with military, but anything!
For example, Kuwait is sending medical teams every now and then and medical health stuff.. under the protection of the American troops ofcourse.
canadianpatriot
Active member
CanadianCombat said:
ABOLUTELY NOT. If harper were to send troops to iraq , canadians would be furious. Seeing how much of a mess Iraq has turned into , canadians would strongly be against it. One reason Harper lost the election in 2004 , was because he said that he would send troops to Iraq.
Personally , I against such an idea. I feel that there is no reason America should be there , let alone canada.
Dean
Active member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Damien435
Active member
First off.
The United Nations was set up to prevent two things. Another world war by giving every government the chance to prevent war through diplomatic means and the mediation by a third party. And, just as importantly, prevent another genocide like what happened to the Jews in Europe during WWII.
Now, on the first point, preventing WWIII the UN has done a magnificent job, as is obvious by the fact that we are all here today. But, on the second point, prevening another genocide, the UN has done nothing. One can not even say that the UN failed to prevent the genocides in Africa, Serbia and Iraq to name a few because the UN has made no effort to prevent them or to bring the culprits to justice. How can they fail if they never tried?
That Saddam Hussein committed unspeakable acts of genocide against the Kurdish minorities in Iraq there can be no doubt. He is being let off the hook, in my opinion, that he is only being charged with 5,000(?) murders when there is not a doubt in my mind that he has done far worse. Everyone has heard the stories, gassing entire villages, putting his health minister's body through a woodchipper then sending it to the man's wife, his underground prisons. He was a bastard and is getting far better treatment than he deserved. The world and rebuilding process in Iraq would be far better off if the soldiers who captured Saddam "accidentally" tossed a couple grenades down into that spider hole he was found it.
Furthermore, as part of the War on Terror we are not at war just with those who attacked us on 9/11, we are at war with "Terror, and all those who would use it as a weapon." Now, if the above mentioned acts are not instances where terror was used to instill a sense of fear in a population as a form of government then I don't really know what is.
The WMD excuse (since that what it was, even if small amounts of Sarin Gas have been found. Oops, the liberals don't want you to hear that. Shhhhhh!) was quite frankly a sad assessment of the US and world at large. 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. We have already forgotten what we learned in that war, which was that dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam, if allowed to go unchecked, have the ability to do great things as well as evil things, typically the latter wins.
The United Nations was set up to prevent two things. Another world war by giving every government the chance to prevent war through diplomatic means and the mediation by a third party. And, just as importantly, prevent another genocide like what happened to the Jews in Europe during WWII.
Now, on the first point, preventing WWIII the UN has done a magnificent job, as is obvious by the fact that we are all here today. But, on the second point, prevening another genocide, the UN has done nothing. One can not even say that the UN failed to prevent the genocides in Africa, Serbia and Iraq to name a few because the UN has made no effort to prevent them or to bring the culprits to justice. How can they fail if they never tried?
That Saddam Hussein committed unspeakable acts of genocide against the Kurdish minorities in Iraq there can be no doubt. He is being let off the hook, in my opinion, that he is only being charged with 5,000(?) murders when there is not a doubt in my mind that he has done far worse. Everyone has heard the stories, gassing entire villages, putting his health minister's body through a woodchipper then sending it to the man's wife, his underground prisons. He was a bastard and is getting far better treatment than he deserved. The world and rebuilding process in Iraq would be far better off if the soldiers who captured Saddam "accidentally" tossed a couple grenades down into that spider hole he was found it.
Furthermore, as part of the War on Terror we are not at war just with those who attacked us on 9/11, we are at war with "Terror, and all those who would use it as a weapon." Now, if the above mentioned acts are not instances where terror was used to instill a sense of fear in a population as a form of government then I don't really know what is.
The WMD excuse (since that what it was, even if small amounts of Sarin Gas have been found. Oops, the liberals don't want you to hear that. Shhhhhh!) was quite frankly a sad assessment of the US and world at large. 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. We have already forgotten what we learned in that war, which was that dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam, if allowed to go unchecked, have the ability to do great things as well as evil things, typically the latter wins.
Dean
Active member
I am a very well informed individual, and the only trace of WMDs that I remember being found were empty warheads that had previously contained sarin gas. While it was an interesting find, the fact remains that they were unusable. If, however, you have more info, I would love to see it.
The UN... (sigh) The UN was NOT created to stop genocide. I'd love to find out where people have picked that one up. The charter of the UN was very clear. It was created to stop wars. If one country attacked another, then the UN, through its members, has the right to intercede to stop it. Two problems: First, the UN has no standing army, it cannot do anything other than pass a resolution to stop a war if one country attacks another. The second problem: If a war starts, the UN must count on its members to provide troops for the mission. In addition, the UN can only set up a peacekeeping line if BOTH the belligerents agree. If not, the UN can do absolutely nothing. And if one of the belligerents changes their minds, the UN must leave.
Now, all of the examples that Damien provided were civil wars. Iraq/Kurds, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, in all of these situations, the UN was forbidden from doing anything as the UN charter specifically forbids it. As I stated above, the UN can only intercede if two warring countries ask them. Faced with all of the genocides mentioned above, the UN could not do anything, but far more importantly, when the troops on the ground in Rwanda asked for more support, ALL of the UN members, including the US, Belgium, and (to my eternal shame) Canada bravely did absolutely nothing. In Yugoslavia, we were a bit luckier. When the situation became intolerable, NATO reacted, knowing very well that the UN was unable to react. NATO saved the situation, but the Iraq situation was different.
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. The fact remains that Al Qaida and the Hussein government had a grand total of one low-level meeting, and that absolutely nothing came of it. (source CIA) The war on terror was meant to punish those who had attacked the US, and I understand and agree with that 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. The US has supported many other questionable governments, including some guy named Saddam Hussein. He was not a nicer guy 30 years ago.
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. 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.
It is too bad that you do not get access to other media sources. There are many really good media outlets (Reuters, CP et. al.) who give very balanced reporting on this issue. You talked about the Liberal Press, maybe more Americans should pay more attention to the international press. (and no, I don't mean Al Jazeera!)
Dean.
The UN... (sigh) The UN was NOT created to stop genocide. I'd love to find out where people have picked that one up. The charter of the UN was very clear. It was created to stop wars. If one country attacked another, then the UN, through its members, has the right to intercede to stop it. Two problems: First, the UN has no standing army, it cannot do anything other than pass a resolution to stop a war if one country attacks another. The second problem: If a war starts, the UN must count on its members to provide troops for the mission. In addition, the UN can only set up a peacekeeping line if BOTH the belligerents agree. If not, the UN can do absolutely nothing. And if one of the belligerents changes their minds, the UN must leave.
Now, all of the examples that Damien provided were civil wars. Iraq/Kurds, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, in all of these situations, the UN was forbidden from doing anything as the UN charter specifically forbids it. As I stated above, the UN can only intercede if two warring countries ask them. Faced with all of the genocides mentioned above, the UN could not do anything, but far more importantly, when the troops on the ground in Rwanda asked for more support, ALL of the UN members, including the US, Belgium, and (to my eternal shame) Canada bravely did absolutely nothing. In Yugoslavia, we were a bit luckier. When the situation became intolerable, NATO reacted, knowing very well that the UN was unable to react. NATO saved the situation, but the Iraq situation was different.
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. The fact remains that Al Qaida and the Hussein government had a grand total of one low-level meeting, and that absolutely nothing came of it. (source CIA) The war on terror was meant to punish those who had attacked the US, and I understand and agree with that 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. The US has supported many other questionable governments, including some guy named Saddam Hussein. He was not a nicer guy 30 years ago.
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. 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.
It is too bad that you do not get access to other media sources. There are many really good media outlets (Reuters, CP et. al.) who give very balanced reporting on this issue. You talked about the Liberal Press, maybe more Americans should pay more attention to the international press. (and no, I don't mean Al Jazeera!)
Dean.
Last edited:
CanadianCombat
Active member
Chief Bones said:
I can see plenty of advantages of sending our troops to Iraq. We are allied with you. And what the hell does paying back money for WWII have to do with anything, no country fully payed back America, and no money was given directly to Canada from America, it was given to the UK and then to us. I don't see the Americans give us money for the softwood lumber and hydro. So lets just call it even.
canadianpatriot said:
I disagree with you about Canadians being strongly against sending troops to Iraq. SOME Canadians will be against it, just like some Americans are against it, but I for one believe that many Canadians would not be against it. I'm in the army reserve and if I was 18 (only 16 right now) I would sign up to go.
And when this all first happened Paul Martin said he was going to go to Iraq but then changed his mind. I read it in one of the other threads somewhere here. I'll try to find it.
Last edited:
Damien435
Active member
Dean, you bring up a good point. I will not address it.
Saddam Hussein had very little, if any affiliation with Al Qaeda, I won't/can't deny this. However:
Now, I realize that everyone has a right to their own opinion, so I will kindly ask for yours on this matter, however I would like to say that my opinion of this is that it appears to be Saddam Hussein funding international terrorism. As I have said before, I do not believe our War on Terror to be just the US striking back at Al Qaeda, that's just a band aid solution, it is more than that, it is the US, and whomever wishes to join us, hitting every terrorist organization in the world.
Now, I mean this in the least hateful way possible, but some nations do not have to worry about terrorism because..... I can't really word this a nice way, they just aren't that important. They have very little international trade, few excess resources, they're just there and are not currently a target for terrorists. Those nations simply don't have to worry about terrorism and so see no need to help the US, I understand this, don't agree with it, but understand it. (It's like the isolationists in the 30's to me. The war came to us even though we tried to hide from it.)
Now it also looks like we will be at war with this new Palestinian state before it even comes to be.
Saddam Hussein had very little, if any affiliation with Al Qaeda, I won't/can't deny this. However:
BBC said:
Now, I realize that everyone has a right to their own opinion, so I will kindly ask for yours on this matter, however I would like to say that my opinion of this is that it appears to be Saddam Hussein funding international terrorism. As I have said before, I do not believe our War on Terror to be just the US striking back at Al Qaeda, that's just a band aid solution, it is more than that, it is the US, and whomever wishes to join us, hitting every terrorist organization in the world.
Now, I mean this in the least hateful way possible, but some nations do not have to worry about terrorism because..... I can't really word this a nice way, they just aren't that important. They have very little international trade, few excess resources, they're just there and are not currently a target for terrorists. Those nations simply don't have to worry about terrorism and so see no need to help the US, I understand this, don't agree with it, but understand it. (It's like the isolationists in the 30's to me. The war came to us even though we tried to hide from it.)
Now it also looks like we will be at war with this new Palestinian state before it even comes to be.