Harper wanted Canadians troops in Iraq

[maplesyrup]

Last year Harper wanted to send Canadian troops to Iraq. Now that the Iraqi invasion has turned into a quagmire, the revisionist Conservatives are trying to rewrite history, saying Harper never wanted to send troops to Iraq.

Wouldn't Harper and his supporters be better off admitting that Harper was wrong, and that he made a mistake, instead of trying to stonewall on this issue?

[Cartman]

Yeah...that was a huge screwup and it really hurt them. In his interview with Mansbridge, he did everything to dodge the issue. It would have been better to just say that a mistake was made.

[Alliance Fanatic]

He supported the troops in Iraq. He believed that we should be supportive of the US, and give moral support.

Who did you support Saddam Hussein.

[caesar]

How about we supported the Iraqi people and the Coalition forces. The needless invasion killed and maimed many innocent Iraqi civillians. Coalition forces personnel lost their lives or are now living with serious life time iijuries for Bush's lies. It is one thing for them to risk their lives and limbs to defend their country; quite another when it is for nothing. There was no threat posed by Iraq.

To be against the Iraqi invasion does not mean that we wupport Saddam. There were thousands of other s involved. If you were a parent would you want your child losing his life of limbs because of Bush's rush to invade without just cause.

[maplesyrup]

Actually I supported Canada's position to work via the United Nations. Too bad Harper wanted to take the law into his own hands, and send Canadian troops to Iraq.

That in not the kind of prime minister Canadians want or need.

[Cartman]

He supported the troops in Iraq. He believed that we should be supportive of the US, and give moral support.

Who did you support Saddam Hussein.

I doubt you will find a CDN in support of Saddam. That is not the issue here. Harper was not saying he wanted to send Hallmark cards to troops in Iraq or have a rally in support of them, he was saying that we should send troops. Let's not rewrite history here. After all of the devastation in Iraq and the recognition that Canadians are generally against sending our troops, he changed his mind. Then, he said he did not change his mind. C'mon! Considering that death is inevitable in war, this was certainly not the issue to flip flop on. This was a huge political blunder and if Stockwell had pulled it.....

[willy]

We did send troops.

Two ships full of sailors and 30 army.

Sadam is gone and nobody is unhappy about that.

As arm chair quarterbacks you can go on about comments made during a debate 1 1/2 ago but you should pay more attention to what we are doing today.

Did you notice that we can not garner multilateral support on Iran. Yes our foreign policy is impotent. Truth is we cant demand anything from any body as a country. Words with no stick, is just winning and nobody listens to winners.

[Cartman]

Can anyone ever find a Canadian who is not in support of our troops wherever they may be? If this was the point, it was a dumb one because few Canadians would be in support of taking away their arms, clothes or food while they are fighting. If memory serves, these troops were under US command, had been in Afghanistan and were taking care of these prisoners.

Harper never said that we should just support our existing troops already deployed, he said we should send troops for a different mission and then changed his mind. Mansbridge gave him ample time to explain this glaring contradiction.

As for our international prowess and influence in Iran, we are a small country and nobody is going to fight such issues on our behalf. After the "axis of evil comment", I question how successful the US would be.

[Alliance Fanatic]

What has the United Nations done thats been so great for the world. The way I understand it they have a bunch of anti-semitic nations, that will do anything to destroy Israel, what 15 bills condemning Israel, and one supporting Hamas.

Where is the UN on Sudan while people are being slaughtered.

Anybody who says the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power is a fool.

Canadian's also unintentionally killed innocent civilians in world war 2.

More civilians are dead due to the "freedom fighters" as Moore puts it, than the American soldiers trying to keep those people safe.

[Stoker]

Mean while, back at the ranch............

Graham says he'll forgo defence white paper

All the Liebrals can toot their horn about their "open to the public" Healthcare talks, but things are back on par within DND.......

How many months ago was it that the Libs promised a defence white paper? Have Canada's defence needs changed since spring? Are we now safer?

[takeanumber]

It's so shrouded in secrecy.

And we all know what happens when things are shrouded in secrecy in Canada.

[kimmy]

Maybe if Canadians had joined the US and UK in taking action, things would have worked out better. Maybe more nations would have joined in. Maybe the whole thing would not have turned into a debacle if it had been a multinational effort.

At the time, Canadian opinion was relatively split on whether we should have gone, although it has certainly gone downhill now that it is obvious that the invasion was supported by flimsy evidence.

The US and Great Britain are Canada's two oldest and strongest partners in the world, and believing them when they said this was something that needed doing didn't seem unreasonable at the time. I feel a little betrayed that they seem to have come to us under false pretenses asking for support.

-kimmy

[takeanumber]

Canada was by no stretch of the imagination 'split'.

Canada is a lot like Switzerland or Sweeden a-la World War One.

We no longer want to fight for our own freedom, perfectly content to let others to do it for us.

And it's disgraceful.

This war on terror...it's a war of totalitarian Islamists against the liberal west. It's just as serious as the first or second (or third world war, which was Korea. Yes, the Korean war really should be called the third world war.), and it's a shame that we're not pulling more than our own weight.

I'm very mad at Bush for lying. It's blown so much credibility in this, the most important war of our times. I'm equally mad at Harper and Day, for their disgraceful flip flopping and unabashed hippocracy on this file.

They, and their kids, should be the first ones drafted into the forces when the Mullah's start chucking feces at the Canadian fan.

[Big Blue Machine]

Canada putting troops into Iraq, just like Afganestan. Not to fight the war, but to help stabilize the country.

[kimmy]

Canada was by no stretch of the imagination 'split'.

Canada is a lot like Switzerland or Sweeden a-la World War One.

We no longer want to fight for our own freedom, perfectly content to let others to do it for us.

And it's disgraceful.

I do believe Canadians were split, and I offer this article as support:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National

The poll found Mr. Chrétien had the support of 56 per cent of Canadians for his handling of the Iraqi crisis — a drop of 10 points in a week. Outside of Quebec, his majority was razor-thin, according to the survey conducted this week.

I have mixed feelings. I think the world is much better off without the Taliban or Saddam in power. The Taliban were the worst sort of scum-bags. Saddam was horrible. Nobody can seriously be sorry that they're gone. But I don't know if I would be personally willing to commit my life to that goal. If I was a Canadian leader, I don't know whether I could in good conscience commit Canadian soldiers' lives to that goal, not without real evidence that Iraq was a threat to Canada and its allies.

I do worry about the rise of Islamic militants as a political force in our world. I'm not sure what the answer is. You can't reason with fanatics, and fighting them just attracts more people to their cause. I think there should have been some sort of international effort against Saddam, and I think it should have happened when he first started giving the UN inspectors trouble. I really do think that if it had been a more international effort, it wouldn't have turned into such an ugly mess.

-kimmy

[KrustyKidd]

I'm very mad at Bush for lying.

WMD? They have found them but not in the amounts thought by every leader of the free world and beyond. All decideing on the same int that Bush did. Are yu mad that Saddamis gone? I'm not, actually rather pleased as he didn't remotely obey the rest of the resolutions that he was supposed to like return of Kuwati Nationals, war repayments, destruction of delivery systems and revamp his human rights accords on his own people to come up to UN specs. I also would ask that I suppose that you find that MMs distortions and leading out-of-sync vidios and 'only one possible outcome' for same are not lies as well right?

Too bad Harper wanted to take the law into his own hands, and send Canadian troops to Iraq.

Was not Canada one of the 'member nations assisting the government of Kuwait' and so tasked with 'ensuring that iraq complies with this and all susequent resolutions pertaining to this issue' as detailed in UN resolution 678? Unless the UN rresolutions mean squat to you then he would not have been taking the law into his own hands.

Quagmire? An interim government well on it's way to transitional democracy and elections. !0,000 Iraq citizens killed in a time period, that in peacetime, would have been over 25,000 due to Saddam in day to day enforcement to tolatatarionism and this is a quagmire? Hell, over half our country hates the government and you think Iraq has it bad? I would hate to be near you when things go downhill. Do you give up, complain, do anything but get on with it or what?

I'm very mad at Bush for lying. It's blown so much credibility in this, the most important war of our times.

I'm torqued at him as well for not telling the truth. However, he was dealing with people that couldn't even get on board when the belief that there was personal threat involved. How would he expect them to understand that the freedom of Iraq was in order? Hell, most don't get it now. Terrorism thrieves in places where things are not right, know any democratic countries that are big terrorism recruiting centers? Iraq is the first step in the main war on terror, to change it into a place where people have hope is a coup and probably and infectious one as well. You don't get it now so why would you have gotten it then?

I'm not sure what the answer is. You can't reason with fanatics, and fighting them just attracts more people to their cause.

Do the words 'long and hard struggle' mean anything to you? Or were you wating for the 'this is gong to be a pushover' speech? The west's greatest strength is also it wekness, free speach. Terrorists know that we are divided and this gives them hope that they will win. Shoot, when a fighter sees weakness in his oppponant it gives him strength to go on with gusto, why do you assume they don't monitor the media and forums such as this? Saddam did and it gave him hope to the end as he pointed out to Dan Rather in the final interview. Rather than submit to the UN he said that the US would never attack and pointed out demonstrators the world over as his rational. The reason the insurgents are killing Iraqis by the score is not for freedom but to return to their rule, the media and detractors of freedom give them the hope and rational for carrying on.

[caesar]

Krusty quote; "Quagmire? An interim government well on it's way to transitional democracy and elections. !0,000 Iraq citizens killed in a time period, that in peacetime, would have been over 25,000 due to Saddam in day to day enforcement to tolatatarionism and this is a quagmire"

The government of Iraq being well on its way to transitional democracy remains to be seen. Right now they have an American controlled puppet government.

Where do you get your figures from on how many people were killed or would have been killed by Saddam; out of thin air I suspect.

[caesar]

iraqia killed 11336 to 13305; American combat deaths;672 wounded; 5934 Americans

Heavy price to pay for bad intelligence.

CBC;The massive files on Saddam's crimes show he was already using poison gas in the early '80s when Reagan twice sent Donald Rumsfeld as special envoy to reassure Saddam of America's interest in better relations. Washington not only ignored abuses, it vetoed United Nations moves to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note; The USA vetoed resolutions against Saddam / Iraq for using chemical weapons. nice eh

[KrustyKidd]

Right now they have an American controlled puppet government.

That does not make any sense. Please explain it without the rhetoric. If the US had intended to install an evil dictator more friendly to themselves would it not have made sense to leave the means to control the population in place instead of ripping it out and replacing it painstakingly over the period of a year and a half?

Furthermore, why not install evil US friendly dictator right away along with the control ability and save over 400 billion and get complete control over the oil? It would save lives and Bush would get re-elected as long drawn out transition of power to elections would not be taking place. The Left would have gone on about something else by now leaving this to history.

Where do you get your figures from on how many people were killed or would have been killed by Saddam; out of thin air I suspect.

No, I don't use the same sources as you, rather mainstream and impeccable ones. I take it that Human Rights Watch is acceptable to you as is iraqibodycount.org?

Human Rights Watch 300,000 dead due to Saddam (not counting war fatalities)

Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more.

Heavy price to pay for bad intelligence.

Bad int on what? We all knew what he was doing, all knew that terrorism thrieves in that area of the world, knew that nobody would be sorry to see him go, knew that a better system had to come there one way or another. What memo didn't you get? the one about how over fifteen thousand Iraqi lives have been saved so far by carrying out this action I take. As wel as the one that says that people with hope and lives free from torture do not strap on belt bombs while those with power to gain and the hope that the west's fortitude will will fail can win I suppose?

Note; The USA vetoed resolutions against Saddam / Iraq for using chemical weapons. nice eh

Was that before or after the origional Gulf War and 911?

[caesar]

Quote; from the site you posted Krusty Human Right watch:

Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.

Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration’s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown—an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.

note; no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent

[caesar]

quote: Was that before or after the origional Gulf War and 911?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it was before the original Gulf War or 9/11. What difference does that make? It was during the Reagan Years. It was during the time when Iraq was accused of gassing the Kurds. At that time, the American War College claimed the gas that affected the Kurds was Iranian gas. (Both sides were using gas) They can't have it both ways. Just because they change allies; they change their findings on who gassed the Kurds.

[takeanumber]

I do consider spreading the un-fact that Iraq and 9-11 were directly linked to fall under the umbrella of 'lying'.

I'm glad that Hussein is behind bars.

I'm mad that Bush spent so much of America's credibility to put him there.

The cost (credibility -- which is soooo important in the REAL war against militant Islamists) was much too high. The case for putting Hussein behind bars could have been made on liberal grounds.

But Bush, instead of lowering himself to argue on liberal grounds, decided that he'd spend credibility in its stead.

THAT is the real issue here.

Don't chuck a red herring into it.

You can hate Bush AND hate Hussein at the same time.

You can hate militant Islamists AND be liberal at the same time.

It's not a case of one or the other.

To think so is myopic.

Harper, on the other hand, bought into and spread the Bush lie.

And then tried to distance himself.

You know, Cons love to paint others as flipfloppers, which makes it so angering when they do it themselves, and then get all bitchy about it when you point out their flipflop.

Day and Harper ought to be ashamed. But they're not. Being Conservatives, I doubt they know how to feel anything except for rage, self-rightcheousness and arrogance.

[caesar]

They like to ignore the fact; that most of Saddams's atrocities occurred while he was an allie of the USA.

Rumsfield assured Saddam of the USA's desire to be allies of Saddam and went as far as vetoing a UN resolution against Saddam for using poisonous gas.

Now there's a flip flop for you eh. Makes one wonder why???? Why could they set up an Afghanistan government so quickly (Where the real terrorist groups were ruling) but take so long to do the same in Iraq. Gotta get those long term contracts signed first. eh.

[idealisttotheend]

No one was more suprised about the USA's ability to flip flip than Hussien. As late as 1990, the American government was trying to find ways of making the man smell nice (he was, after all a secular leader in a highly religious part of the world) and Hussien never thought the American's would attack him if he invaded Kuwait.

[maplesyrup]

Harper's stance almost makes one grateful for an undersized military

Last year, Harper derided Canada's decision to sit out the colonialist debacle as "abrasively neutral."

How irritating Canada couldn't be in the vanguard of bombing civilians, abducting Iraqis off the street to be tortured and helping establish U.S. military bases where they're not wanted.

Canadian atrocities in Somalia apparently weren't enough.

"We should have been there shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies," said Harper last year, sounding decidedly warlike.

On the day the invasion began, Harper registered a "nay" in Hansard, opposing a motion in the House urging Ottawa to maintain its troop boycott of Iraq.

On Alliance Party stationery from MP Stockwell Day came this: "Canadian troops must join allies in the Gulf."

That's about as clear as it gets that the MP for Calgary Southwest and his party wanted Canadian troops involved in a dehumanizing, destabilizing and costly disaster -- a blunder foretold by many in the diplomatic, aid and activist communities.

On March 20, 2003, Harper proclaimed "it is inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain weapons of mass destruction."

Perhaps the MP could join Bush in a comical video peeking under coffee tables and recliners for those pesky WMDs.

Many of us, including this column, knew the claims were bogus months before the war, so what's Harper's excuse?

This was such a colossal blunder by Harper, as now the latest polls show close to 80% of Canadians are opposed to the war in Iraq, that the Conservative leader should consider stepping down at some point if the Conservatives are to have any chance at success.

I am a firm believer that if any leader wants to go to war, he or she needs to walk the talk, and personally sign up for the armed forces themselves, and as well, to make sure that all their kids go to war as well. All of a sudden you will see these so-called leaders change their minds.