Harper wanted Canadians troops in Iraq

[idealisttotheend]

Did the United States blow-up the pipelines? Did the Iraq government blow-up the pipelines? Or did terrorists that fear a soveregin Iraq aided by the United States led coalition blow-up the pipelines?

You argued that the US's action helped to make the oil more secure through their "police" action. My evidence proves that this is not the case as there were not attacks against oil infrustructure in Iraq prior to America invading. The results speak for themselves as they say.

Third, again thank-you for pointing out how absurd it is to think that this war was about oil, it's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago.

Excellent link

In the future Iraq may have nearly 30% of the world's reserves. Iraqi oil is also the cheapest in the world (costing $5 a barrel to extract compare to $20 in Canada) and has some of lowest sulphur content, reducing refining costs. Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was effectively under the control of Russian, Chinese and French oil companies, threatening the hegemony of the American companies. One also wonders at Iraq's position in OPEC and how the American "involvement" in Iraq will effect OPECs future and future decisions.

It is not absurd at all to argue the US has an interest in Iraqi oil. But that is not to put the countries who opposed the war on the side of the angels. France and Russina's opposition may have been motivated by their oil interests as well.

it's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago.

Just one link of many including books

If the US wanted to invade a country over Sept 11 it ought to have started with Saudi Arabia as every reasonable person knows. That's where the terrorists came from, there were no Iraqis flying planes into buildings. And yes there was talk about a meeting or two but these were largely disproved and if Al-Quada has half a brain they will be far more interested in forming links with the terrorists/militants in the US than they ever were with a country that is hated by their leader and goes against all of their fundamental principles.

As I've been saying in many threads at this site, since I first started posting here, the United States did not go into Iraq for Oil.

You don't seems to be sticking to any one position here but vacilating between many as you have difficulty proving any of them.

[Slavik44]

First off, I wish to thank you for adding another "round to my chamber" to those that say that the United States went into Iraq for their oil.

Second, I didn't imply that the United States went into Iraq for Iraqi oil, I said it, but from the postion of one playing devils advocate.

Third, again thank-you for pointing out how absurd it is to think that this war was about oil, it's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago. As I've been saying in many threads at this site, since I first started posting here, the United States did not go into Iraq for Oil.

Again that is not true, your putting a swing to my statement, it would be absurd for the U.S to go to Iraq to secure their current oil imports from Iraq, however with the need for oil estimated to start rising rapidly due to the modernization of China, the U.S will need more oil, and certianly it could get it from Iraq. It is absurd for the U.S to go to secure it's oil imports from the country but not to secure more oil from the country. Aswell please don't make falicous claims about Iraq being involved in September 11th, it wasn't, I belive that has been adequatley proven. We invaded afgahnistan because of its links to september 11th, Iraq had none. So stop trying to associate September 11th with Iraq the only association would be the fact that there is a september 11th in Iraq buth there is a 12th and 13th as well.

[caesar]

quote: "You argued that the US's action helped to make the oil more secure through their "police" action. My evidence proves that this is not the case as there were not attacks against oil infrustructure in Iraq prior to America invading. The results speak for themselves as they say"

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

The USA did try to make sure Iraq oil was secure; that they are failing doesn't change their intentions.

[Stoker]

You argued that the US's action helped to make the oil more secure through their "police" action. My evidence proves that this is not the case as there were not attacks against oil infrustructure in Iraq prior to America invading. The results speak for themselves as they say.

So your saying it's the fault of the Americans for the attacks? Isn't that kinda like saying that a rape victim is at fault for wearing a short cut skirt?

If the US wanted to invade a country over Sept 11 it ought to have started with Saudi Arabia as every reasonable person knows. That's where the terrorists came from, there were no Iraqis flying planes into buildings. And yes there was talk about a meeting or two but these were largely disproved and if Al-Quada has half a brain they will be far more interested in forming links with the terrorists/militants in the US than they ever were with a country that is hated by their leader and goes against all of their fundamental principles.

Again, this is not a fight against just Al-Quada, but against any nation that poses a a possable threat and/or supports terror.........You're with us or agianst us remeber

You don't seems to be sticking to any one position here but vacilating between many as you have difficulty proving any of them.

Simple, go back and look at my preious posts or at this quote from this thread:

Stoker Posted: Aug 1 2004, 09:46 PM 

QUOTE 

What difference does it make what I think. I do not have any reason to make excuses for him but here you go; take your choice

stupidity? oil? Strategic military control?

Who knows the reasons of a tyrant? 

Stupidity? Thats not a reason, it's a personal trait.

Oil? So that's why Gas is so cheap right now and the Iraqi people are not even close to finally starting to "reap the benefits" of their natural resources

And

Stoker Posted: Aug 2 2004, 03:02 PM 

Of all the reasons stated by the United States for going to war with Iraq, be they WMD, removing tryany, humanitarian reasons, putting stability in a ass backwards region, etc etc..........I've yet to heard what is the problem with any of these above reasons......

I'll go even further, let's say that this war was about securing Iraq oil, on top of the other reasons.......Whats wrong with protecting every facet of ones being? Oil plays a large part of the US economy, whats wrong with protecting it?

Again that is not true, your putting a swing to my statement, it would be absurd for the U.S to go to Iraq to secure their current oil imports from Iraq, however with the need for oil estimated to start rising rapidly due to the modernization of China, the U.S will need more oil, and certianly it could get it from Iraq. It is absurd for the U.S to go to secure it's oil imports from the country but not to secure more oil from the country. Aswell please don't make falicous claims about Iraq being involved in September 11th, it wasn't, I belive that has been adequatley proven. We invaded afgahnistan because of its links to september 11th, Iraq had none. So stop trying to associate September 11th with Iraq the only association would be the fact that there is a september 11th in Iraq buth there is a 12th and 13th as well.

Where did I say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

[Slavik44]

Where did I say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

It's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago

you said that is what the war in Iraq was about

[Stoker]

you said that is what the war in Iraq was about

I said:

Third, again thank-you for pointing out how absurd it is to think that this war was about oil, it's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago. As I've been saying in many threads at this site, since I first started posting here, the United States did not go into Iraq for Oil.

Where did I mention Iraq and 9/11? The entire war on terror was a reaction to 9/11 and is being waged against any nation, group or person that is a possable threat towards Americans.

If 9/11 had not of happend, the chances are slim to none that a war would have been fought in Afghanstain, special forces operations in parts of the Sudan and the Philippines, bank accounts seized across the globe, the voluntary disarmament of Libya, and the war in Iraq etc.

Are all these cases directly related to 9/11? Of course not....

Would the actions that have been taken most likely have happend if it were not because of 9/11? What do you think?

[Slavik44]

you said that is what the war in Iraq was about

I said:

Third, again thank-you for pointing out how absurd it is to think that this war was about oil, it's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago. As I've been saying in many threads at this site, since I first started posting here, the United States did not go into Iraq for Oil.

Where did I mention Iraq and 9/11? The entire war on terror was a reaction to 9/11 and is being waged against any nation, group or person that is a possable threat towards Americans.

If 9/11 had not of happend, the chances are slim to none that a war would have been fought in Afghanstain, special forces operations in parts of the Sudan and the Philippines, bank accounts seized across the globe, the voluntary disarmament of Libya, and the war in Iraq etc.

Are all these cases directly related to 9/11? Of course not....

Would the actions that have been taken most likely have happend if it were not because of 9/11? What do you think?

If A war is about several thousand people would died three years ago, but theire is no link tot he country you are attacking and the death of those people, then who ever invaded that country is a fricken moron. Just because terrorsits kill you population does nto give you the right to invade countries that had no involvement in this. You suggested the war was going on becuase of september 11th, no i don't thinkt he war would have happend with out september 11th, however September 11th is ABSOLUTLEY no justificatation to attack a country you admit had no connection to spetember 11th.

[caesar]

quote: "11th, no i don't thinkt he war would have happend with out september 11th"

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

Please do not call it a war; it is not; none was declared. It is an invasion.

The attack on Iraq was contemplated long before the attack on the World Trade Center. It was discussed as soon as Bush took office. He was just waiting for ANY excuse. This is not conjecture; this has been documented.

[Stoker]

If A war is about several thousand people would died three years ago, but theire is no link tot he country you are attacking and the death of those people, then who ever invaded that country is a fricken moron. 

.........Or they are being prudent, in that they will ensure their own safety instead of allowing an international

body, which is filled with vested intrests, to do so.

Just because terrorsits kill you population does nto give you the right to invade countries that had no involvement in this.

According to who? The United Nations?

You suggested the war was going on becuase of september 11th, no i don't thinkt he war would have happend with out september 11th, however September 11th is ABSOLUTLEY no justificatation to attack a country you admit had no connection to spetember 11th.

Why? As I asked Ceaser, should the United States always be forced to take the first blow before reacting?

[Stoker]

Please do not call it a war; it is not; none was declared. It is an invasion.

The attack on Iraq was contemplated long before the attack on the World Trade Center. It was discussed as soon as Bush took office. He was just waiting for ANY excuse. This is not conjecture; this has been documented.

So you then wouldn't mind providing documentation then eh?

[Slavik44]

If A war is about several thousand people would died three years ago, but theire is no link tot he country you are attacking and the death of those people, then who ever invaded that country is a fricken moron. 

.........Or they are being prudent, in that they will ensure their own safety instead of allowing an international

body, which is filled with vested intrests, to do so.

Just because terrorsits kill you population does nto give you the right to invade countries that had no involvement in this.

According to who? The United Nations?

1. Prudent for what, there wer eno links between Iraq and Al queda, there were no WOMD Iraq coudl give to terrorists groups, jsut what exactly where the going to do? They were not sheltering Osama, infact you diverted attention away from the war on terror to fight Iraq, and as much as bush tries to tell you Iraq is a part of the war from terror it is acutaly apart from the war on terror.

2. Sure the U.N, God, me I don't care find a link from the event to the country you are invading or atleast a threat to your countries security from the country you are invading. It is not according to anyone, it simply woudl have been the right thing to do, not just for a country promoting international security but for anyone. It coudl ahve got more peopel on your side. Don't give some excuse liek it might have been to late, you have for the most part complete control of the country, and you again have nto found anythign that indicates suddam or Iraq was planing terrorist attacks on the U.S or U.S interests.

[Slavik44]

Please do not call it a war; it is not; none was declared. It is an invasion.

The attack on Iraq was contemplated long before the attack on the World Trade Center. It was discussed as soon as Bush took office. He was just waiting for ANY excuse. This is not conjecture; this has been documented.

So you then wouldn't mind providing documentation then eh?

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.

As former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neal has revealed, the invasion of Iraq was the main topic of discussion at Bush’s first cabinet meeting, soon after Bush took office in what amounted to a 5-4 vote of the US Supreme Court.

The plan went full throttle in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. According to CBS News, just five hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld set his sights on Saddam Hussein. That afternoon, Rumsfeld ordered the military to gather the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [usama bin Laden]… Go massive… Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

Bush’s former anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke—who served under several Republican and Democratic presidents—has offered some of the most damning testimony, charging that Bush and his closest aides were so fixated with invading Iraq that they neglected repeated warnings about Al Qaeda. At one point, according to Clarke, the President himself gave him the clear impression that he needed to come up with a connection between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks, no matter what he had to do. When he came back with a report denying any connection, disappointed White House officials told him to go back and try again. As Rumsfeld said, Sweep it all up… related or not.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

GEORGE Bush’s former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.

President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in a book written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O'Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this."'

..................

[caesar]

Thanks Slavik. It was common knowledge Stoker

[Stoker]

1. Prudent for what, there wer eno links between Iraq and Al queda, there were no WOMD Iraq coudl give to terrorists groups, jsut what exactly where the going to do? They were not sheltering Osama, infact you diverted attention away from the war on terror to fight Iraq, and as much as bush tries to tell you Iraq is a part of the war from terror it is acutaly apart from the war on terror.

Who says that it is apart from the war on terror?

2. Sure the U.N, God, me I don't care find a link from the event to the country you are invading or atleast a threat to your countries security from the country you are invading. It is not according to anyone, it simply woudl have been the right thing to do, not just for a country promoting international security but for anyone. It coudl ahve got more peopel on your side. Don't give some excuse liek it might have been to late, you have for the most part complete control of the country, and you again have nto found anythign that indicates suddam or Iraq was planing terrorist attacks on the U.S or U.S interests.

So are you trying to say that the world would be a safer place with Saddam in power?

WRT to your quotes:

Where is Neil Mackay's "SECRET blueprint for US global domination"?

Paul O’Neill? The guy was fired for christ sakes

Richard Clarke? The same guy that was turned down the postion of Sec. of Homeland Defence and is selling a book?

My god, all you need is a quote from Moore and you've solved the case

[caesar]

The old USA way; vilify anyone who proves that the administration did wrong. They did the same thing to Ramsey Clarke.

The world would be a safer place with MR Bush out of power!!!!!!!Cheney, too; the real power.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I think that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, and did so under false intelligence, from every intelligence agency in the world. I would say in the war of terror, Iraq was number 5 in priority. The US should have had to do 4 things before dealing with Iraq.

1- Take out Al Queida cells, and obliterate their organization

2- Focus on a peace plan for the middle east, to reduce the tensions there

3- Deal with the threat from North Korea

4- Clean up the immigration system, and deport illegal aliens

5- Bring about change in Iraq, and force Iraq to allow weapons inspections.

Now, I don't believe for a second that people like Jack Layton would have ever supported the war in Iraq, even if the weapons inspectors had said their were weapons in Iraq. Jack Layton and the NDP were against the war in Afganistan, so that obviously shows that their soft on terrorism, if they do not believe that Afganistan was a threat to the western world.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

In other words, please forget the lies, abuse, and illegality of what was done.

How about one good reason why?

[Big Blue Machine]

Couldn't we send a small force like 2500 troops to Iraq to help stabilize the country. Or maybe peacekeepers. Pacekeepers have done well all over the world.

[Stoker]

The old USA way; vilify anyone who proves that the administration did wrong. They did the same thing to Ramsey Clarke.

The world would be a safer place with MR Bush out of power!!!!!!!Cheney, too; the real power.

I'm not trying to "vilify" anybody, what I'm doing is questioning their credability...........

1- Take out Al Queida cells, and obliterate their organization

Are they (and a good chunk of the world) not in the process of doing that?

2- Focus on a peace plan for the middle east, to reduce the tensions there

It's been tryed

3- Deal with the threat from North Korea

Are they not trying to do that right now?

4- Clean up the immigration system, and deport illegal aliens

Californa's economy would collapse......

5- Bring about change in Iraq, and force Iraq to allow weapons inspections.

Isn't that what being done right now? WRT weapons inspections.......what for?

Now, I don't believe for a second that people like Jack Layton would have ever supported the war in Iraq, even if the weapons inspectors had said their were weapons in Iraq. Jack Layton and the NDP were against the war in Afganistan, so that obviously shows that their soft on terrorism, if they do not believe that Afganistan was a threat to the western world.

Do you care what Jack Layton supports and doesn't support?

Couldn't we send a small force like 2500 troops to Iraq to help stabilize the country. Or maybe peacekeepers. Pacekeepers have done well all over the world.

Were are we going to get these troops? Do you want Canada to start a draft perhaps?

[Big Blue Machine]

Nope the draft, just send 2500 of the best qualified soldiers in the Canadian military

[caesar]

Our soldiers/peacekeepers are already committed in Afghanistan and Haiti. It is not our problem to stabilize Iraq; we didn't approve of it being de-stabilized. Why should Canada risk lives of our soldiers. That could be misconstued as acceptance of the invasion. Besides not many countries are willing to fight alongside the American troops. Unless the UN takes complete control; No to Canadian troops.

[willy]

Besides not many countries are willing to fight alongside the American troops.

What could possibly be wrong with fighting next US troops. These brave young people were sent to war. Respect their sacrifice.

[caesar]

friendly fire

[caesar]

I do feel for these young people who are obviously not being particularly well lead. I feel for the poor soldiers who are being used a scapegoats for the torture tactics used by the military. It is obviously well spread around and comes from higher up in command. I think it is a complete bunch of bs. They are being forced to risk their lives and well being not in defense of their country but for reasons that have no real connection to defending one's country.

[Stoker]

Nope the draft, just send 2500 of the best qualified soldiers in the Canadian military

As was mentioned by caesar, we already have many committments and to meet those it's already hard enough..........

Why should Canada risk lives of our soldiers. That could be misconstued as acceptance of the invasion. Besides not many countries are willing to fight alongside the American troops. Unless the UN takes complete control; No to Canadian troops.

The only reason I agree with caesar on no Canadian troops in Iraq, is because we don't have any to send.