So Mr Chretien kept us out of iraq.

[PIK]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8110

This is for the libs that still think that we were not in iraq. lol

[waldo]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8110

This is for the libs that still think that we were not in iraq. lol

nothing to see here - move along now. Even as relatively new as I am to MLW, I've seen this come forward a couple of times on MLW in the past... you offer no grand revelations... and, yes - the Chretien Liberals kept Canadian combat troops, kept Canada, out of direct and protracted Iraq involvement. Canada was not... officially... a willing coalescent. Harper would have been your go-to for that - hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canada was not... officially... a willing coalescent. Harper would have been your go-to for that - hey?

Canada also was not...officially....in opposition like France or Germany. And we know why! LOL!

[PIK]

nothing to see here - move along now. Even as relatively new as I am to MLW, I've seen this come forward a couple of times on MLW in the past... you offer no grand revelations... and, yes - the Chretien Liberals kept Canadian combat troops, kept Canada, out of direct and protracted Iraq involvement. Canada was not... officially... a willing coalescent. Harper would have been your go-to for that - hey?

If I remember correctly one of britains most decorated during that war was a canadian tank commander, ''on loan '' to the british. Nice try.

[PIK]

Harper has never denied that troops were there , because of a raid involving SAS/JTF2 troops in ''06''

[waldo]

Nice try.

so what? If it's true, I'm quite surprised you haven't pulled a link trigger - wassup? Or... you could check around and realize the generic nature of so-called, 'exchange officers' and the agreements between respective countries military. But really, if you need to revel in the supposed exploits of a veritable handful of 'exchange officers' to get your hard-on for Canadian combat troops being in Iraq... have at er. More thinking Canadians recognize and thank the Chretien Liberals for, officially, keeping Canada out of Bush's Iraqi war debacle.

Canada <=> Coalition of the Unwilling

[bush_cheney2004]

.... More thinking Canadians recognize and thank the Chretien Liberals for, officially, keeping Canada out of Bush's Iraqi war debacle.

Canada <=> Coalition of the Unwilling

Yes, except that Canada aided the war effort directly and indirectly more than many of the "official" members of the coalition. PM Martin begged for access to services contracts, and we know why Canada was let into the club.

...Despite the US’s original decision to forbid Canada from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction contracts on the grounds that it had not supported the war, several US diplomats gave Canada credit for aiding the war effort.

Last month, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that US appreciated "the contribution [Canada has] made, both in Afghanistan and to Iraq."

And last March, during the war, in a speech to the Economic Club in Toronto, US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci stated that, although he was disappointed in Canada for not participating in the "Coalition of the Willing", Canadians indirectly provide more support for the US in Iraq than "most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us. It's kind of an odd situation."

When asked to for comment on the US’s reversal, disarmament activist Richard Sanders said, "The reason we were given for not being able to bid was because we didn’t help out with the war. Now we are able to bid. Does that mean that they acknowledge that we did help?"

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=128

[Topaz]

When Duffy was hosting CTV's show, I remember a Congressman, say that Canada wasn't involved in the Iraq war because the US didn't ask Canada to join. I guess it doesn't really matter because this has been gw bush's war from the start.

[Guest American Woman]

When Duffy was hosting CTV's show, I remember a Congressman, say that Canada wasn't involved in the Iraq war because the US didn't ask Canada to join.

Ummmm, no. Canada wasn't part of the 'coalition of the willing' only because there wasn't a UN resolution authorizing force; Chretien was willing to join in the war effort if Bush and Blair could get the resolution.

But Canada was "involved" in the war.

[waldo]

Ummmm, no. Canada wasn't part of the 'coalition of the willing' only because there wasn't a UN resolution authorizing force; Chretien was willing to join in the war effort if Bush and Blair could get the resolution.

only because! Gee... such an inconsequential requirement; a real annoying inconvenience... certainly, nothing that stops rogue nations though - hey?

[Guest American Woman]

only because! Gee... such an inconsequential requirement; a real annoying inconvenience... certainly, nothing that stops rogue nations though - hey?

My comment had nothing to do with how "inconsequential" the "requirement" was, nor whether or not it was an "annoying inconvenience." My comment was in regards to the post implying Canada was not in Iraq simply because the U.S. hadn't asked. Try reading the post I'm responding to in the future, and it might help.

Furthermore, it's not that Chretien didn't think the U.S. and Britain had a right to go into Iraq, he wanted to be there along side them, but didn't think he could do it without a UN Resolution. So instead of "officially" being part of the "coalition of the willing," Canada was there outside of the coalition, but there just the same. In other words, it ultimately didn't stop Canada's participation in the war. Which makes Canada a "rogue nation" too.

Capice?

Edited June 13, 2010 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Escorting the US Navy: Thirteen hundred Canadian troops aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar warships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq.

What a crock of shit. Am I supposed to believe the U.S. fleet couldn't find the place itself? That said it's a little moot now to worry about who got Canada into what and when and where.

All I can say is that when the other shoe drops I hope it falls on Ottawa, Capital Hill in particular.

[bush_cheney2004]

only because! Gee... such an inconsequential requirement; a real annoying inconvenience... certainly, nothing that stops rogue nations though - hey?

...and one that didn't seem to stop Canada from bombing Serbia. Such a rogue nation!!

[Smallc]

All I can say is that when the other shoe drops I hope it falls on Ottawa, Capital Hill in particular.

Why would you want it to fall on a hotel? Or did you mean Parliament Hill....

[waldo]

My comment had nothing to do with how "inconsequential" the "requirement" was, nor whether or not it was an "annoying inconvenience." My comment was in regards to the post implying Canada was not in Iraq simply because the U.S. hadn't asked. Try reading the post I'm responding to in the future, and it might help.

try reading the post I'm responding to in the future, and it might help... oh, right - that was your post. The post where you used the words, "only because"... the words I highlighted in my response. The "only because" you so trivialize, was/is a most fundamental principle the Chretien Liberals held high... unlike your country/the U.K.

Furthermore, it's not that Chretien didn't think the U.S. and Britain had a right to go into Iraq, he wanted to be there along side them, but didn't think he could do it without a UN Resolution. So instead of "officially" being part of the "coalition of the willing," Canada was there outside of the coalition, but there just the same. In other words, it ultimately didn't stop Canada's participation in the war. Which makes Canada a "rogue nation" too.

minimal participation in Iraq, keyed to pre-existing exchange programs with U.S./UK military (suggested that some 30 or so military personnel were involved)... minimal participation in naval support/logistics, keyed to the involvement of a few frigates that were already engaged, pre-war. Hear that minimal participation directly commented on within the following video... Chretien's HOC statements on Canada's refusal to join the illegal U.S./UK war in Iraq.

Capice?

a very proud moment for Chretien... for Canada. Capice?

[eyeball]

Why would you want it to fall on a hotel? Or did you mean Parliament Hill....

Parliament Hill would be fine.

[myata]

It's true that Canada does not have independent foreign policy anymore (in any meaningful or noticeable sense).

And it is true that it didn't start with Harper, though he's certainly very happy to follow in that direction.

And it sucks because that was pretty much the last thing that gave this country anyhow meaningful role internationally.

But maintaining independence costs, and we'd rather save those for our merrymaking or home renovation projects.

[bloodyminded]

In international affairs, Canada will very often do what Washington wishes it to do. That's just a fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

In international affairs, Canada will very often do what Washington wishes it to do. That's just a fact.

Except when it doesn't (e.g. Iraq, Missile Defense, Cuba). So it is more accurate to say that Canada will very often do what is in Canada's best interest, as it should be. Own it.....

[bloodyminded]

Except when it doesn't (e.g. Iraq, Missile Defense, Cuba). So it is more accurate to say that Canada will very often do what is in Canada's best interest, as it should be. Own it.....

Yes, I should think "very often" might have been a clue.

As for "own[ing] it"...of course. Just because America's foreign policy is often gangsterish and degenerate doesn't mean that Canada's isn't.

In short, we're in total agreement...though for some reason you cannot recognize this.

[bush_cheney2004]

....In short, we're in total agreement...though for some reason you cannot recognize this.

We are not in total agreement....and to make this obvious....Washington does not "very often" do what Canada wishes!

[bloodyminded]

We are not in total agreement....and to make this obvious....Washington does not "very often" do what Canada wishes!

But since I never made this claim, nor hinted at it...we remain in perfect agreement.

[bush_cheney2004]

But since I never made this claim, nor hinted at it...we remain in perfect agreement.

Whatever you say...the mere appearance of agreement is important to you...me...not so much! LOL!

[Oleg Bach]

Mr Chretien was and is a violent mischief filled little brat - He always had an un-controlable temper and an inclination to breach law and order - As a kid other than being an instigator of street fights - his favorite pass time was to ride those old street cars and reach out the back pulling the rope and disconnecting the power...but of course he is a real hero...who attempts to stangle rude young men in public - I say give him the Order Of Canada - Just like the one they gave to Morgantaler..who said.."Unwanted children become concentration camp guards" - His pre-emptive stike against Nazis yet to be born was brilliant - if you are a hyper-vigilant paranoid freak.

[bloodyminded]

Whatever you say...the mere appearance of agreement is important to you...me...not so much! LOL!

It's not important to me at all. It's just a plain fact.

Edited June 15, 2010 by bloodyminded