So Mr Chretien kept us out of iraq.

[eyeball]

I recall pointing out years ago that Canada was involved in Iraq through the back door. I also recall some crack about U.S. commanders saying we weren't really needed and would only get in the way. Probably from BC 2004.

Now all of a sudden we're being portrayed as having played some sort of integral indispensable role.

[bush_cheney2004]

I recall pointing out years ago that Canada was involved in Iraq through the back door. I also recall some crack about U.S. commanders saying we weren't really needed and would only get in the way. Probably from BC 2004.

Now all of a sudden we're being portrayed as having played some sort of integral indispensable role.

That's right...true to [Chretien's} form, Canada will always be sitting on the fence when it comes to the invasion of Iraq, from the half baked compromise with Mexico that would have guaranteed invasion anyway, to the begging by PM Martin for access to post invasion service contracts for "credit" earned.

[myata]

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?

So all these years we've been building and rebuilding there, you haven't been (following it)? And wait, it's still 2010 and we have to see what's going to happen in 2011. It may as well be yet another "sovereignty dance".

Waldo, this is something I can't agree upon. What is the relation of principle vs a word ("exchange", "cooperation")? If the war is deemed illegal and unjustifiable, following the principle would be not allowing any Canadian forces to participate in it. What we have here smacks of tacit approval or at least, ambiguity.

Yet again, one truth for the public, another - for the exalted ones.

Edited June 17, 2010 by myata

[bloodyminded]

So all these years we've been building and rebuilding there, you haven't been (following it)? And wait, it's still 2010 and we have to see what's going to happen in 2011. It may as well be yet another "sovereignty dance".

Waldo, this is something I can't agree upon. What is the relation of principle vs a word ("exchange", "cooperation")? If the war is deemed illegal and unjustifiable, following the principle would be not allowing any Canadian forces to participate in it. What we have here smacks of tacit approval or at least, ambiguity.

Exactly.

People often feel a profound need to "defend their country's honour," or some other such agreeable-sounding garbage.

The day Canada's international hands are as clean as we are taught from birth will be a great day...but it's not going to happen, so it's moot.

Canadians have an easy time of it laughing at American self-serving myths about its own nobility. And, of course, Canadians are right to mock it, because it's a sick joke that only frightened little stupid Americans could truly believe.

What we can't in good conscience do is mock it as a comparative response, believing patriotic myths about Canada's nobility, plagiarized from children's tales.

[waldo]

Waldo, this is something I can't agree upon. What is the relation of principle vs a word ("exchange", "cooperation")? If the war is deemed illegal and unjustifiable, following the principle would be not allowing any Canadian forces to participate in it. What we have here smacks of tacit approval or at least, ambiguity.

fair comment; equally, I would have much preferred that the pre-existing military personnel exchange program... on like principle... would not have been 'honored' as applied to the illegal Iraq war. I can accept the stacking of principles to recognize the broader, not-willing principle base... over the lesser exchange program agreement base - one that may have engaged some 30 (or so) military personnel.

[bush_cheney2004]

... I can accept the stacking of principles to recognize the broader, not-willing principle base... over the lesser exchange program agreement base - one that may have engaged some 30 (or so) military personnel.

Good start...but you will still have to rationalize away the overflight rights and cargo refueling in Newfoundland. Let's just pretend that all those war materials and personnel were not headed for Iraq...no sireee...they were going to...ummm...Belgium!

[eyeball]

So all these years we've been building and rebuilding there, you haven't been (following it)? And wait, it's still 2010 and we have to see what's going to happen in 2011. It may as well be yet another "sovereignty dance".

Waldo, this is something I can't agree upon. What is the relation of principle vs a word ("exchange", "cooperation")? If the war is deemed illegal and unjustifiable, following the principle would be not allowing any Canadian forces to participate in it. What we have here smacks of tacit approval or at least, ambiguity.

Yet again, one truth for the public, another - for the exalted ones.

Hence the need for Canadians to determine directly via referendum who our allies are and who we should be maintaining defensive/aggression agreements with.

[myata]

Hence the need for Canadians to determine directly via referendum who our allies are and who we should be maintaining defensive/aggression agreements with.

Yes I'd entirely support this solution. Yes or no, no backdoors for "kind of".

Yes those 30 or so troops mean that Canada participated in the war, factually if not oficially.

[fellowtraveller]

So all these years we've been building and rebuilding there, you haven't been (following it)? And wait, it's still 2010 and we have to see what's going to happen in 2011. It may as well be yet another "sovereignty dance".

In Afgahistan? Not much building or rebuilding there yet, too busy shooting. I'd agree we have to wait on 2011, you were the one who claims we are staying when our oft repeated policy(despite Iggus newfound desire to stay) is to leave.

Are you a warmongering freedom hater like Iggy?

[M.Dancer]

In Afgahistan? Not much building or rebuilding there yet, too busy shooting.

Incorrect. There is more and more work being done...

http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/projects-projet

http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/progress-progres/benchmarks-reperes/priorit3.aspxs/dam-barrage.aspx

every nation there is involved in multiple projects...and everyone needs security in and out of the wire

[fellowtraveller]

Incorrect. There is more and more work being done...

It's a fraction of what would be happenig if it was not so dangerous.

[Guest American Woman]

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 ....

Thank you for backing up my posts/information. I appreciate it. My criticism is all directed at the government for saying one thing and doing another. The military assistance, I'm sure, is greatly appreciated by the United States/coalition, and while I didn't support going to war, it's good that Saddam is no longer in power and I hope good comes to the Iraqi people as a result.