So Mr Chretien kept us out of iraq.

[myata]

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

No, but it's a choice.

[bloodyminded]

No, but it's a choice.

Of course.

[fellowtraveller]

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

And a shocking one. Why would longtime friends and longtime allies, sharing a huge border,being each others largest trading partners, sharing countless treaities and agrrements, ever do things together?

Well, except for Iraq, Panama, Vietnam, Granada and now Afghanistan where the US has formally requiested we stay and we have declined. I guess those were times when we didn't do what we were told. Bad dog.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

"Minimal?" The Liberal government apparently didn't think so.

....the Liberal government ... actually boast[ed] of [Canada's] contribution to Washington.

Despite Canada's official position to stay out of Iraq, Canada, in fact, was contributing forces. There were about 100 exchange officers involved in technical support roles with the U.S and Britain.

(As well, although not publicly known at the time, the most senior Canadian officer, then brigadier general Walter Natynczyk, the current chief of defence staff, was involved in the planning of the invasion and led 10 brigades consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers in Iraq. He was awarded the Meritorious Service Cross for his efforts.)

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

"Proud?"

...the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateral-ism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department or the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq — three ships and 100 exchange officers — exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."

That makes you proud, eh?

Guess it's what they say, and not what they do, that's a matter of "pride" for you.

At least the U.S. and British governments, along with the rest of those in the coalition, were upfront about it; which quite frankly, I prefer to pretending to be 'holier-than-thou' while doing the opposite of what was being 'preached.'

So if that makes you proud, go figure. Frankly, I prefer being an honest "rogue nation" to a dishonest one, pretending to be something it's not.

Our own voice on Iraq?

[myata]

except for Panama, Vietnam, Granada

Yes those were the days ...

Iraq,

declined..somewhat, as we're discovering. The "exchange" ruse is shameful and offensive. If the war is deemed illegal there'd be no excuse for any of our troops participating in it.

and now Afghanistan where the US has formally requiested we stay and we have declined.

Declined, really?

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I think I have to agree with bush_cheney here, you aren't really saying the same thing. You are saying that America's foreign policy is often gangsterish and degenerate, and so is Canada's, because often it's doing what the United States wishes. Bush-cheney is pointing out that Canada, in these instances, is not doing what the United States wishes, but rather it's doing what Canada wishes. In other words, Canada is "often gangsterish and degenerate" for the same exact reasons the U.S. is, and that's because it's in Canada's best interest to act the way it does. Ultimately it has nothing to do with the U.S.'s wishes and everything to do with Canada's wishes.

[bloodyminded]

And a shocking one. Why would longtime friends and longtime allies, sharing a huge border,being each others largest trading partners, sharing countless treaities and agrrements, ever do things together?

As Bush-Cheney has correctly pointed out, America is not in the habit of kowtowing to Canada on international affairs. They'll tolerate a few differences, to be sure...all empires tolerate a modicum of minor dissent from friendlies. Absolute power doesn't exist.

It's less about our distinctive relationship than it is about Power. If Canada were the Superpower, we'd behave more or less the same as the US does...and the US would be holding our shirttails in obeisance.

Well, except for Iraq, Panama, Vietnam, Granada and now Afghanistan where the US has formally requiested we stay and we have declined. I guess those were times when we didn't do what we were told. Bad dog.

As has been made clear, we did not actually decline the Iraq adventure. We just did an end-run around public opinion for an unpopular war.

We benefitted greatly from the Vietnam War...it was a boon.

Afghanistan is now, as we are seeing, back on the table, so let's defer judgement for now. The 2011 date is not quite as firm as once imagined.

[bloodyminded]

I think I have to agree with bush_cheney here, you aren't really saying the same thing. You are saying that America's foreign policy is often gangsterish and degenerate, and so is Canada's, because often it's doing what the United States wishes. Bush-cheney is pointing out that Canada, in these instances, is not doing what the United States wishes, but rather it's doing what Canada wishes. In other words, Canada is "often gangsterish and degenerate" for the same exact reasons the U.S. is, and that's because it's in Canada's best interest to act the way it does. Ultimately it has nothing to do with the U.S.'s wishes and everything to do with Canada's wishes.

No, you have misread me. I suggested no such thing.

In fact, you even quoted me: "Just because America's foreign policy is often gangsterish and degenerate doesn't mean that Canada's isn't."

How is that holding the US responsible for Canada's actions? Canada is respoensible for its own behaviour....full stop. Unambiguously.

The addendum "because it's often doing what the United States wishes" is entirely your own (or bush-Cheney's) and is totally divorced from my post.

Yes, we often do what the US wishes.

But no, that is not the reason we are sometimes gangsterish.

It was already clear, until BC tried his best to obfuscate.

[waldo]

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.

"Minimal?" The Liberal government apparently didn't think so.

....the Liberal government ... actually boast[ed] of [Canada's] contribution to Washington.

Despite Canada's official position to stay out of Iraq, Canada, in fact, was contributing forces. There were about 100 exchange officers involved in technical support roles with the U.S and Britain.

(As well, although not publicly known at the time, the most senior Canadian officer, then brigadier general Walter Natynczyk, the current chief of defence staff, was involved in the planning of the invasion and led 10 brigades consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers in Iraq. He was awarded the Meritorious Service Cross for his efforts.)

perhaps continue your scurrying about and find something... anything... that actually supports your suggestion (your quoted books suggestion) that, as you say, "the Liberal government ... actually boast[ed] of [Canada's] contribution to Washington". There's certainly no shortage of public statements from the Liberal government that state anything but. Again, any reference to military participation reflected upon pre-existing exchange agreements with both the U.S. and UK military... exactly as Chretien stated in the video I linked to. I've read references that state as few as 30 exchange officers over the entire length of the war were involved... I've also seen it stated as 50 exchange officers... you've now bumped it up to 100 with your quoted reference. Wow!

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

"Proud?"

...the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateral-ism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department or the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq — three ships and 100 exchange officers — exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."

That makes you proud, eh?

Guess it's what they say, and not what they do, that's a matter of "pride" for you.

At least the U.S. and British governments, along with the rest of those in the coalition, were upfront about it; which quite frankly, I prefer to pretending to be 'holier-than-thou' while doing the opposite of what was being 'preached.'

So if that makes you proud, go figure. Frankly, I prefer being an honest "rogue nation" to a dishonest one, pretending to be something it's not.

Our own voice on Iraq?

proud? Most certainly - the Chretien government held firm to a principle... unlike your government that engaged in an illegal war predicated upon lies, deceit and outright fabrications. That you would now pompously claim your government was "upfront about it" - yeesh! I could care less that you want to assert (with no real substantiation), that the public voice of the Canadian government didn't match the Canadian military voice (your currying favour in Washington suggestion)... perhaps you could also scurry about more and find something to substantiate that. In any case, revel in your rogue nation status - however, notwithstanding oxymoronic attachment, your labeling it as an "honest" rogue nation would seem the height of your own hypocrisy.

[Guest American Woman]

No, you have misread me. I suggested no such thing.

In fact, you even quoted me: "Just because America's foreign policy is often gangsterish and degenerate doesn't mean that Canada's isn't."

How is that holding the US responsible for Canada's actions? Canada is respoensible for its own behaviour....full stop. Unambiguously.

The addendum "because it's often doing what the United States wishes" is entirely your own (or bush-Cheney's) and is totally divorced from my post.

Yes, we often do what the US wishes.

But no, that is not the reason we are sometimes gangsterish.

It was already clear, until BC tried his best to obfuscate.

Apparently I did misread you, and I did so before reading bush_cheney's response, so I took it as he did on my own. But in light of your clarification, I stand corrected.

[bloodyminded]

Apparently I did misread you, and I did so before reading bush_cheney's response, so I took it as he did on my own. But in light of your clarification, I stand corrected.

I appreciate it, AW.

[PIK]

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.

Funny thing the americans are begging us to stay and harper will not budge ,but now iggy is trying to say we should be keeping people there. I don't know how anybody can say they will vote for this party.

[Guest American Woman]

proud? Most certainly - the Chretien government held firm to a principle...

In words, but not in actions. Something to be really proud of.

unlike your government that engaged in an illegal war predicated upon lies, deceit and outright fabrications.

At least we engaged in it openly, not pretending to not be engaged while actively participating.

That you would now pompously claim your government was "upfront about it" - yeesh!

You mean the U.S. wasn't upfront about engaging in war? Because I sure didn't see the government preaching one thing while quietly doing another.

I could care less that you want to assert (with no real substantiation), that the public voice of the Canadian government didn't match the Canadian military voice (your currying favour in Washington suggestion)... perhaps you could also scurry about more and find something to substantiate that.

Let's see. Publicly Canada was saying it couldn't go to war in Iraq without a UN resolution. Yet, for starters, one of Canada's leading Generals led troops in Iraq for a year. Way to not go to war.

In any case, revel in your rogue nation status - however, notwithstanding oxymoronic attachment, your labeling it as an "honest" rogue nation would seem the height of your own hypocrisy.

It didn't try to hide the fact that it was engaging in war with Iraq, that makes it's participation and honest participation. Can't say the same for Canada's participation, saying one thing, doing another.

Ultimately Canada was no better than the U.S. or Britain et al, because whether you realize it or not, actions trump words. I used to respect Canada for its stance regarding the war in Iraq, but I now know better. If you insist on hiding in the illusion that Canada stayed out of the war, go for it, but it doesn't change the facts.

Edited June 15, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I appreciate it, AW.

No problem, as I also appreciated the clarification.

[waldo]

proud? Most certainly - the Chretien government held firm to a principle...

In words, but not in actions. Something to be really proud of.

most assuredly in both words... and actions. Canada... was not willing. You can continue to bluster all you want about Canadian military involvement; however, as stated now several times, as emphasized in Chretien's HOC statement, any military participation related directly to pre-existing exchange agreements. You're most certainly drawing from a very weak hand if you continue to beak-off over some 30/50/100 personnel engaged over the entire length of the war.

unlike your government that engaged in an illegal war predicated upon lies, deceit and outright fabrications.

At least we engaged in it openly, not pretending to not be engaged while actively participating.

nonsense - see pre-existing military exchange agreements; as stated, "you're most certainly drawing from a very weak hand if you continue to beak-off over some 30/50/100 personnel engaged over the entire length of the war".

That you would now pompously claim your government was "upfront about it" - yeesh!

You mean the U.S. wasn't upfront about engaging in war? Because I sure didn't see the government preaching one thing while quietly doing another.

you're deluded. Bushco was most certainly not upfront with the American people, with your own Congress... with the world. Bushco most certainly preached a fallacy of imminent danger... of the need for preemptive "defense" - and the American government/people bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

I could care less that you want to assert (with no real substantiation), that the public voice of the Canadian government didn't match the Canadian military voice (your currying favour in Washington suggestion)... perhaps you could also scurry about more and find something to substantiate that.

Let's see. Publicly Canada was saying it couldn't go to war in Iraq without a UN resolution. Yet, for starters, one of Canada's leading Generals led troops in Iraq for a year. Way to not go to war.

repeat, repeat... again, "any military participation related directly to pre-existing exchange agreements. You're most certainly drawing from a very weak hand if you continue to beak-off over some 30/50/100 personnel engaged over the entire length of the war".

In any case, revel in your rogue nation status - however, notwithstanding oxymoronic attachment, your labeling it as an "honest" rogue nation would seem the height of your own hypocrisy.

It didn't try to hide the fact that it was engaging in war with Iraq, that makes it's participation and honest participation. Can't say the same for Canada's participation, saying one thing, doing another.

Ultimately Canada was no better than the U.S. or Britain et al, because whether you realize it or not, actions trump words. I used to respect Canada for its stance regarding the war in Iraq, but I now know better. If you insist on hiding in the illusion that Canada stayed out of the war, go for it, but it doesn't change the facts.

your country's "honest participation"... in an illegal war predicated upon lies, deceit and outright fabrications! As I said, revel in your stated "honest rogue nation" status... enjoy your hypocrisy! I could give a FF on your lack of respect for Canada's unwillingness to join the Bush debacle - and yes, the facts are most certainly there... staring you and every other American squarely in the face. The Chretien Liberal government held firm on principle... your country (and the UK)... not so much!

[myata]

Funny thing the americans are begging us to stay and harper will not budge ,but now iggy is trying to say we should be keeping people there. I don't know how anybody can say they will vote for this party.

I don't like this idea, other than with specific and very stringent criteria on which this assistence would be provided with immediate and unconditional termination if they aren't met. Too often that "democracy building" turns out into desperate operation in propping puppet regimes that have no chance of standing on their own.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The Chretien Liberal government held firm on principle... your country (and the UK)... not so much!

It had to...Canada had nothing to offer the invasion except for "good luck"...too busy and committed to Afghanerstan!

[Guest American Woman]

most assuredly in both words... and actions. Canada... was not willing.

[....]

...your country's "honest participation"... in an illegal war predicated upon lies, deceit and outright fabrications! As I said, revel in your stated "honest rogue nation" status... enjoy your hypocrisy! I could give a FF on your lack of respect for Canada's unwillingness to join the Bush debacle - and yes, the facts are most certainly there... staring you and every other American squarely in the face. The Chretien Liberal government held firm on principle... your country (and the UK)... not so much!

How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again! – Mark Twain

On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.”

"Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping." How appropriate.

But don't worry. You're evidently not alone in your delusions:

The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Read and learn: Canada’s secret war in Iraq

Unless you prefer to remain in ignorance.

[waldo]

no need to repost the OP link... I quite like another members astute response to that article!

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.

you can continue to attempt to spread your shame and guilt over your country's participation in the illegal Iraq war - predicated upon lies, deceit and fabrication. Most Canadians will be... similarly... unwilling to buy into it. Enjoy your, as you call it, "honest rogue nation" status... revel in your hypocrisy.

Canada <=> Standing on Principle <=> Not Willing

[Guest American Woman]

Canada <=> Standing on Principle <=> Not Willing

In your fantasy world. In the Real World, however, not so much.

Canada <=> Pretending to Stand on Principle <=> CW-HUSH: "Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping"

[Army Guy]

you can continue to attempt to spread your shame and guilt over your country's participation in the illegal Iraq war - predicated upon lies, deceit and fabrication. Most Canadians will be... similarly... unwilling to buy into it. Enjoy your, as you call it, "honest rogue nation" status... revel in your hypocrisy.

Canada <=> Standing on Principle <=> Not Willing

What she has posted is true in ref our countries back door response is correct....

Try looking under Operation Apollo, plus other various missions, said to have been in support of Terrorist operations, Sure call it what you want, our Navy was operating under a US naval battle group...in the Arabian Gulf and the Arabian Sea..at the time of the build up and when the conflict started....

Also supported by maritime patrol aircraft, Higher HQ, A comms Unit, a Sea king helo det, and some transport aircraft...

Just a piont of note those personal that are exchange missions, are not authorized to follow exchange units into combat without expressed permission from you guessed it Ottawa....Our military pers do not go to war because they are on exchange with any country....it must be authorized...by the PM ....

[waldo]

consistent with the previously linked video presenting Chretien's HOC statements... consistent with Chretien statements concerning the honoring of existing exchange agreements with U.S./UK military... consistent with Chretien statements concerning Canada's honoring NATO commitments (specifically towards fighting terrorism as relates directly to the NATO invocation of the "principle of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty" - effective Oct 2, 2001).

what's most interesting is recognizing the background, motives and associations of the author of the OP's linked article... self described as offering "significant contributions to Canada's peace movement... to exposing and opposing military events... organizing anti-war rallies, marches, peace vigils and conferences...". So, while leveraging that linked 'over-the-top' OP article, basically... we have a MLW American interloping member attempting to rely on the self-serving writings of a "peacenik" ... in an attempt to denigrate Canada's principled response and refusal to engage in the illegal American war that was predicated on lies, deceit and fabrication. Her hypocrisy appears boundless!

We believe that Iraq must fully abide by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. We have always made (it) clear that Canada would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign. Over the last few weeks the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action. Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately, we were not successful. If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate.

Canada <=> Standing on Principle <=> Not Willing

[fellowtraveller]

Despite Canada's official position to stay out of Iraq, Canada, in fact, was contributing forces. There were about 100 exchange officers involved in technical support roles with the U.S and Britain.

(As well, although not publicly known at the time, the most senior Canadian officer, then brigadier general Walter Natynczyk, the current chief of defence staff, was involved in the planning of the invasion and led 10 brigades consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers in Iraq. He was awarded the Meritorious Service Cross for his efforts.)

Big deal. Canada has had exchange officers and soldiers and techs and planners stationed with NATO, NORAD and many of our allies since WWII and most defitnitely with US and UK. They do the same in our service, foreign officers train with us . It is common. The purpose of this, particularly for officers , is that their joint command and treaty partners may work effectively together as they have agreed to do for about 65 years.

[fellowtraveller]

and now Afghanistan where the US has formally requiested we stay and we have declined.

Declined, really?

Yes, really.

Harper has stuck to his guns on a withdrawal in 2011 despite the entreaties from Obama and Ignatieff to stay.

Haven't you been following it in the media?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Canada <=> Standing on Principle <=> Not Willing

<=> Not Capable