Why isn't Canada helping to promote democracy?

[Black Dog]

I don't think that they are capable of doing this alone, i think it would again take many years of effort just to get the ball roling and Iraqi people self sufficent.

Why not? Up until relatively recently, Iraq was one of the most advanced, best educated countries in the region. They aren't ignorant savages requiring our benevolant guidance: I think they deserve the chance to make a go of it.

So we agree he was a scumbag, were we differ is what we should do with scumbags. So where do we make a stand at what piont do we say enough.

It's interesting: even when "we" were against Saddam, we were helping him, whether it was oil-for-food scams or facilitating smuggling that financed the regime (again, in the interests of "stability"). Hell, a simple "no" from Shwarzkopf in 1991 (when Saddam requested U.S permission to deploy gunships against the Shiite uprising that would likely have brought him down) would have been "enough". The point here is taht, one way or another, scumbags like him depend on us to stay in power: the less involved we are, the more isolated and powerless they become.

I will agree to a certain piont that foreign meddling is a problem, however it's a small one. And it works both ways you can't tell me that Sadam did not take advantage of this when ever he could. On top of that who made him attack Iran, or annex Kuwait, and wipe out the kurds. Sadam was no pupet ,he pulled his own strings.

But he question goes back to: who empowered him. the U.S. supllied Iraq during their war with Iran: they even helped precipitate the invasion by feeding Iraq intelligence about Iran's military. The lesson is that as long as we approach other people's problems through our lense (because neither he decision to support Saddam nor the decision to depose him were made with the Iraqi people in mind), we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Sometimes you just got to do whats right, who decides that in the world. we have already decided what is right and wrong we just need to enforce it.

But we can't just go around deciding who's worthy of "liberating" and who is not. It's not our place. Like any other policy, intervention carries with it consequenses that cannot be forseen and beyond what is intended. There's no guarantee our efforts to rebuild Iraq would be anymore successful than the efforts to date, or indeed any other effort designed to re-shape the world in our image. The very fact of our belief that we know best guarantees our efforts will fail.

[sage]

I agree with you Black Dog.

Is this not a continuum though? At some point in time outside intervention may be necessary in some circumstances. Take Nazi Germany.

The question is the when not the if.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Why not? Up until relatively recently, Iraq was one of the most advanced, best educated countries in the region. They aren't ignorant savages requiring our benevolant guidance: I think they deserve the chance to make a go of it.

I did not say they were ignorant savages that require our guidance. Just that they would need our help to get the ball rolling. If they were capable of doing this by themselfs without help why have they not done anything to date. Are you saying the coalition is holding them back.

It's interesting: even when "we" were against Saddam, we were helping him, whether it was oil-for-food scams or facilitating smuggling that financed the regime (again, in the interests of "stability"). Hell, a simple "no" from Shwarzkopf in 1991 (when Saddam requested U.S permission to deploy gunships against the Shiite uprising that would likely have brought him down) would have been "enough". The point here is taht, one way or another, scumbags like him depend on us to stay in power: the less involved we are, the more isolated and powerless they become

I disagree there will always be someone that will take an interest in countries like Iraq like Russia, china, etc. sticking our heads in the sand does not make the problem go away. sooner or later someone will have to take action, IE 1 st gulf war, or are you saying we should have stayed out of that one as well.

But we can't just go around deciding who's worthy of "liberating" and who is not. It's not our place. Like any other policy, intervention carries with it consequenses that cannot be forseen and beyond what is intended. There's no guarantee our efforts to rebuild Iraq would be anymore successful than the efforts to date, or indeed any other effort designed to re-shape the world in our image. The very fact of our belief that we know best guarantees our efforts will fail.

I did not imply we would decide who is worth saving, what i did say is the world has already decided what is right and wrong and how each country should conduct themselfs, break those rules and suffer the consquences. and that should be implied regardless if their is material gains or not. example Iraq got attention because of the oil, Rwanda got no attention because thier was nothing to be gained, except saving thousands of lives.

And your right there is no guarantees in live except when we do nothing then nothing is guaranteed. And i'm not saying we rebuild Iraq in our image but rather in a new Iraq that can live and prosper in todays world.

[Black Dog]

I did not say they were ignorant savages that require our guidance. Just that they would need our help to get the ball rolling.

I didn't mean to imply you called them savages, but you do presuppose a certain helplessness on their part that's quite paternalistic.

If they were capable of doing this by themselfs without help why have they not done anything to date. Are you saying the coalition is holding them back

Well currently thay've got an insurgency-cum-civil war on their hands which is excrabated by the prescence of foreign troops and a governing authority that seems to have used the reconsruction as a pretext to line their own pockets.(For example.) Basically, the failure to establish order and provide for the basic needs of Iraqi society can be laid at the doorstep of the "coalition" that blundered its way through with no apparent plan of action. At this point, i don't see nay way of fixing this humpty-dumpty situation othe than stepping back and letting Iraqis sort things out among themselves until they get to the point where they can ask for our help.

I disagree there will always be someone that will take an interest in countries like Iraq like Russia, china, etc. sticking our heads in the sand does not make the problem go away. sooner or later someone will have to take action, IE 1 st gulf war, or are you saying we should have stayed out of that one as well.

Well the first Gulf War only began because Saddam thought the U.S had no opinion on his dispute with Kuwait. And I don't think the argument "well everyone else is doing it" works in world affairs anymore than it does on the playground. If we want other countries to fllow our lead, we should lead by example.

I did not imply we would decide who is worth saving, what i did say is the world has already decided what is right and wrong and how each country should conduct themselfs, break those rules and suffer the consquences. and that should be implied regardless if their is material gains or not. example Iraq got attention because of the oil, Rwanda got no attention because thier was nothing to be gained, except saving thousands of lives.

Well, there's several different sets of rules at work. Small, weak countries cannot invade othe rweak countries (Iraq v. Kuwait), but powerful countries can (U.S. in Iraq). I'm sure you'll agree that "humanitarian intervention" is a pretext: strangely, these interventions usually only occur in areas of startegic value to the powerful. My point here is that "the world" (meaning mostly western, industrialized countries) has set the rules for others to follow, but the game is rigged in their favour.

[jafridi]

This is the right time for our friend Montgomery Burns to go to Iraq and promote democracy there. Its actually pretty cool to run the gauntlet from Abdali on the Kuwaiti border to Camp Anaconda on the outskirts of Baghdad. On the way he can enjoy the US Army hospitality "camps" with exotic sounding names.

Nights could be pretty interesting too; fireworks, mortar shots and the dim catter of gunfire in the distance have a mesmerizing effect. He can enjoy his morning excursion in the back of a Buffalo; a supposedly mine-proof truck developed by P W Botha Aparthied regime in South Africa in the 1980's, and now the favorite of US Military in Iraq. If the occasion permits he can look into the eyes of an average Iraqi and see the simmerings of Love, gratitude and appreciation; for having brought the fruits of democracy to his impoversihed primitve lands. For added effect he can visit the Abu Ghuraib University where people of his elk have been teaching democratic values to the inmates on Ice Blocks with electrodes attached to their genetelia!.

Back in the camp he can treat himself to an overdoze of G.I. stories of valour and courage; how to mow down a crowd of wailing women under the tracks of an M-1 tank; the dramatic effects 30 mm cannon of an A-10 on crowds; how to take women/ children hostages to cow down and subdue the darn terrorists.

Upon return to Canada, he can declare himself as a war hero; who risked his life and innards to promote democracy and plurasim in Iraq. Never mind if he could not venture out on his own to buy a can of pepsi.

[jafridi]

what i did say is the world has already decided what is right and wrong and how each country should conduct themselfs, break those rules and suffer the consquences. and that should be implied regardless if their is material gains or not. example Iraq got attention because of the oil, Rwanda got no attention because thier was nothing to be gained, except saving thousands of lives.

Dear Army Guy: Who is the "World" in this context? and who has made those so-called "Rules of Conduct"?

The World has been held hostage to the financial interests of the US neo-con Bush leadership; and the filthy rich US Oil and Defense industries. Only about 3 wannbe Anglo-saxon nations are supporting the misadventure in Iraq as camp followers, enjoying a status little better than Butlers to the GI's. The other members of "coalition of the willing" are imporverished 3rd world or new-Europe countries where a few million bucks go a long way.

As Canada has fallen out of line and had declined to play the role of a Butler, the Bush administration pulled all stops to confer "victory" on the Candian version of Erich Honecker, named Mr. Stephan Harper. Our simplistic sincere Rural Canada brethern were sold on the idea that by not playing a "Role" in Iraq they have missed some great opportunties. Certain quarters in Canadian forces too have been comparing their lot to the glorious British and Australian forces that have playing a "role" in Iraq. What is that role anyways? Americans dont care much about their camp followers; and will not give them 5 cents worth of advantage. They are just letting them wallow in their own misery.

By staying out of the disgraceful Iraq misadventure, Canada has not missed the Bus; Candians have not missed anything.

[Army Guy]

Jafridi:

Dear Army Guy: Who is the "World" in this context? and who has made those so-called "Rules of Conduct"?

Before the UN the League of nations, after the UN was formed the United nations general assembly. of which over 191 nations are involved.

The World has been held hostage to the financial interests of the US neo-con Bush leadership; and the filthy rich US Oil and Defense industries. Only about 3 wannbe Anglo-saxon nations are supporting the misadventure in Iraq as camp followers, enjoying a status little better than Butlers to the GI's. The other members of "coalition of the willing" are imporverished 3rd world or new-Europe countries where a few million bucks go a long way.

Just how is that "the World" is being held hostage to the financial interest of the US. Are you impling that the US is the only nation making a profit from the war in Iraq.

Yes, there are a few of those, but there is more support than you are letting on, support from established nations who are not new euro states or 3 rd world countries. Such as Australia, denmark,Italy,japan,South korea, and the UK.

As of July 1, 2005, there were 26 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.

As Canada has fallen out of line and had declined to play the role of a Butler, the Bush administration pulled all stops to confer "victory" on the Candian version of Erich Honecker, named Mr. Stephan Harper.

Are you saying that the US had a role to play in getting elected our new Government, or just that they prefer to work with one that is not so anti-american.

Our simplistic sincere Rural Canada brethern were sold on the idea that by not playing a "Role" in Iraq they have missed some great opportunties. Certain quarters in Canadian forces too have been comparing their lot to the glorious British and Australian forces that have playing a "role" in Iraq.

I'm sorry that us simplistic rural people do not have the same insight on the worlds problems as you in the Urban centers do" excuse me got to shovel some bullshit out of my driveway". You sound like a liberal MP with some time on his hands.

If by great opportunities you mean rebuilding a nation, to one that can govern it's people properly without slaughtering them by the thousands then YES, or by rebuilding a nation that does not resort to war on a whim, yes. We in Canada have gone to plenty of military operations where the goals were not as lofty as the ones in Iraq.

What is that role anyways?

To give the Iraqi people a chioce of government, to give them freedoms that they did not have under Sadam.

Americans dont care much about their camp followers; and will not give them 5 cents worth of advantage. They are just letting them wallow in their own misery.

Who cares what the Americans think or do, the situation in Iraq is not about them it is about the Iraqi people and what can be done to help them.

By staying out of the disgraceful Iraq misadventure, Canada has not missed the Bus; Candians have not missed anything.

You don't get the piont, by keeping your head in the sand solves nothing, other than giving you something to talk about at your Urban dinner table where your opinions mean so much more than the rest of the countries do. Your not part of the solution but part of the problem, because your fixated on blaming the US.

The problem is this, Iraq situation is not going to get better unless more of the world gets involved. By doing nothing we solve nothing and the Iraq situation continues, until it boils into something bigger.

Perhaps you and the rest of "Urban" Canada should dig thier heads out of thier asses and give us a solution, so we as a nation can do something constructive and help. Instead of sitting on the side lines pionting our Canadian fingers at the US. Telling ourselfs how much better we are.

[jafridi]

Let us assume for a minute that the UN sets International code of conduct. The UN did not authorize the 2003 US invasion of Iraq; the US violated the UN charter with impunity. And look what they got in the end! The invasion was a heinous crime but the occupation was “legitimized”! The UN acts with utmost haste to enforce resolutions on Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia; but the 1948 / 1967 Resolutions against Israel cannot be implemented. In short, the UN has lost its relevance and moral authority. It is just a legitimizing instrument for the US foreign policy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that there is no such body that defines International Code of Conduct.

I am not fixated on the US as a nation. Our interests are irrevocably intertwined with this great nation due to history, geography and economics. However, through a quirk of political history; and the inherent gullibility in character; the American people are more or less disenfranchised by their present neo-con leadership. Through deft manipulation of the political process, a small band of Southern Baptist fundamentalists, as extremist in their worldviews as Taleban or Alquaida; have propped up the Bush clan as their leaders. A once free nation, known for its pluralism and sense of justice; is relegated to the level of Stasis East Germany circa 1960’s.

The worst part however, is that the enormous financial clout of the US Corporates this cabal is shaping the politics of dissenting free world nations. Election Canada 2006 is a living example. The Liberals can be accused of slush funds and stealing to Finance their campaign. The estimated $ 200 m spent on the Mr. Stephan Harper’s election campaign did not come from legitimate contributions either (they are hardly about $ 5-6 million). Stephan had no resource other than US neocon support.

No Sir! I am not implying that the US public has gained from the occupation of Iraq. The US taxpayers are in fact net losers. The US Defense Industry and Oil Industry both are minting billions of dollars from the war. They are the ONLY gainers from this war.

The other “gainers” are the corrupt despotic leaders of the “coalition of the willing” riding the dollars gravy train. In your 26 nations listing of the “coalition of the willing” you forgot to mention the enormous strategic power of the State of Fiji that recently withdrew its forces after it lost 33% of its force in a road accident in Kuwait (2 out of 6 personnel)! What has poor Al Salvador, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria or Kazakhstan got to do with “Reconstruction” of Iraq? Most of these nations are in extremely pitiable state themselves. The Japan, Italian, Australian, Korea and Polish contingents are all entrenched in fly infested camps between the Iraqi cities of Nasseriyah and Aldiwaniyah. Their “Reconstruction” potential can be gauged from the fact that they need force protection and choppers hovering overhead to venture out anywhere. A simple task like buying grocery can be very hazardous to health.

“Coalition of the willing” is the moral equivalent of a Drug Lord (US) using underage children to distribute cocaine to dilute the legal issues. Some of these juveniles are just too poor; they need a place to sleep and a loaf of bread. The “senior” juveniles are there for the kicks, thrills and recognition. US contractors engaged in food / logistics transportation has coined a standard term: “Beggar camps”!

Having lost an estimated 150,000 people to the so-called “Allied Action” in the last 30 months Iraq is one boiling cauldron. Walk around on any street in Baghdad and peer deep into the hatred filled eyes of the local populace; and probably you will get the message. You cannot gauge the despair on the face of an orphan who has lost his father to “Reconstruction” action. He has learnt to identify every white face as enemy, no matter how noble the intentions.

The only option is for the “do-gooders” to get out and hope that (i) time is in fact a great healer (ii) Out of sight actually means out of mind.

They don’t need any further security or reconstruction; even with the noblest Canadian values of compassion. All Iraq wants is to be left alone.

[Insom Elvis]

Well currently thay've got an insurgency-cum-civil war on their hands which is excrabated by the prescence of foreign troops and a governing authority that seems to have used the reconsruction as a pretext to line their own pockets.(For example.) Basically, the failure to establish order and provide for the basic needs of Iraqi society can be laid at the doorstep of the "coalition" that blundered its way through with no apparent plan of action. At this point, i don't see nay way of fixing this humpty-dumpty situation othe than stepping back and letting Iraqis sort things out among themselves until they get to the point where they can ask for our help.

BlackDog... When we step back and let them fend for themselves they hate us for doing so. Yeah, we went in full bore, blowing the opression to hell, then left and the opression punished the populace. Didn't we learn something from this? The worst thing we can do for the Iraqi people, especially those who have helped us is to leave right now. No apparent plan of action? I don't see Kuwait in any immediate danger, I don't see scud missiles wiping out populations of almost defenseless countries, I see Sadaam in a jail cell and little more than road side bombs between the U.S. and an Iraq that will someday have the courage to vote freely.

[Army Guy]

jafridi:

Let us assume for a minute that the UN sets International code of conduct.

Let's not assume but say it is fact for those 191 who signed and ratified that code of conduct.

The UN did not authorize the 2003 US invasion of Iraq; the US violated the UN charter with impunity.

No the UN did not authorize the invasion, in fact if the UN had it's way we would still be debating on what to do with Sadam and his merry band of killers, other examples are Rwanda the UN refused to act and thousand died. there are many more examples in history of the UN's inability to take approiate action when needed. So yes i will agree with your quote " In short, the UN has lost its relevance and moral authority."

But does this now mean that every decission they have made is irrelevant, we should throw in the towel and have nations act as they please. NO i think not, the basic rules need to be follow if we are to co exist with other. Most will agree that most of the excuses for the Iraqi invasion were proven to be false,and did not justify the invasion. However those same people will also agree that something had to be done about the Sadam regime and would not discount miltary action..

The invasion was a heinous crime but the occupation was “legitimized”!

Are you saying that the removal of Sadam and his band of killers is a crime, and that the world would be a better place with him still in power ? No it would have been a crime to leave him there in power to slaughter thousands more in his quest for more power.

It is just a legitimizing instrument for the US foreign policy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that there is no such body that defines International Code of Conduct.

So now that we have thrown out the international code of conduct ,what instrument do we use to conduct our selfs. The bible, perhaps the Koran, history has already shown us what happens when nations strictly conduct themselfs by these sources. In fact history is still showing us.

The worst part however, is that the enormous financial clout of the US Corporates this cabal is shaping the politics of dissenting free world nations. Election Canada 2006 is a living example. The Liberals can be accused of slush funds and stealing to Finance their campaign. The estimated $ 200 m spent on the Mr. Stephan Harper’s election campaign did not come from legitimate contributions either (they are hardly about $ 5-6 million). Stephan had no resource other than US neocon support.

Of course you have prove of this, why not take it to the RCMP or the press, i'm sure that those that voted for him including myself would be very interested. To find out that our present government was bankrolled by the US neocon support.

No Sir! I am not implying that the US public has gained from the occupation of Iraq. The US taxpayers are in fact net losers. The US Defense Industry and Oil Industry both are minting billions of dollars from the war. They are the ONLY gainers from this war.

The other “gainers” are the corrupt despotic leaders of the “coalition of the willing” riding the dollars gravy train.

So the rest of the OIL producing nations are gaining nothing, In fact i would say that it would be in thier interest if the unstabilty in Iraq continued. And as far as the US defense industry being the only benifactor is false as well, Russia and china are making tidy little profits of this war as well.

What has poor Al Salvador, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria or Kazakhstan got to do with “Reconstruction” of Iraq? Most of these nations are in extremely pitiable state themselves. The Japan, Italian, Australian, Korea and Polish contingents are all entrenched in fly infested camps between the Iraqi cities of Nasseriyah and Aldiwaniyah. Their “Reconstruction” potential can be gauged from the fact that they need force protection and choppers hovering overhead to venture out anywhere. A simple task like buying grocery can be very hazardous to health.

Atleast they have contributed something to the reconstruction of Iraq, while Canada has provided cash it could be doing alot more. Your wrong about thier reconstruction potential anything that is done to improve one iraqi's quality of life is worth the effort. Our reconstuction teams in Afgan also need force protection, and arial support but it does not stop them from going out every day to reconstruct something making small steps towards a better future.

Having lost an estimated 150,000 people to the so-called “Allied Action” in the last 30 months Iraq is one boiling cauldron. Walk around on any street in Baghdad and peer deep into the hatred filled eyes of the local populace; and probably you will get the message. You cannot gauge the despair on the face of an orphan who has lost his father to “Reconstruction” action. He has learnt to identify every white face as enemy, no matter how noble the intentions.

It is easy to pin the blame of all those deaths on the Allied action, to wipe clean the insurgents hands as they were just defending thier country, or fulfilling a religious need. It's easy to blame the white faces in the crowd for the deaths of thier families. Because this is what the insurgents tell them what has happened or what is being taught in school, or at religious services. The insurgents know this and use this as a weapon.

The only option is for the “do-gooders” to get out and hope that (i) time is in fact a great healer (ii) Out of sight actually means out of mind.

Yes, get out run and hide ,stick our heads back in the sand, let the insurgents play the bongo's on our lilly white arses. Does anyone actually think that the Insurgents would stop the fighting, or that they would allow the current population to govern themselfs with free elections, better human rights if the coalition pulled out. If that was the case are we not fighting for the same thing...Where do you see Iraq in 5 years time if the coalition left today? do you see Iraq in peace with it self and the world and rebuilding it's nation or do you see another Sadam a Muslim extremist in power, rebuilding it's armies to once again rain terror were they see fit.

They don’t need any further security or reconstruction; even with the noblest Canadian values of compassion. All Iraq wants is to be left alone

If the Iraqi people are anything like the Afgan people all they want is peace, to be able to live life as it was intended. If the coalition was to depart tommorrow civil war would tear that country apart, and peace would be just another pipe dream. And the deaths would continue.

[ritamd]

Because promoting democracy is not what is going on in Iraq!

[geoffrey]

Because promoting democracy is not what is going on in Iraq!

Last time I checked it was... maybe I was imaging that they had their first elections???

[newbie]

Because promoting democracy is not what is going on in Iraq!

Last time I checked it was... maybe I was imaging that they had their first elections???

Elections do not a democracy make.

[Guest American Woman]

Palestine recently had a democratic election and since we don't like who won, we've asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in aid. It's not about democracy. It's about making Iraq a "U.S.-friendly" nation.

[Drea]

Re: Iraq -- It's certainly not about "saving" people from a dictator. It's about keeping the dollar as THE currency for trading oil.

Re: Iran -- It's certainly not about a rouge nation with nuclear weapons

The End of the Dollar Hegemony

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

...

[geoffrey]

Palestine recently had a democratic election and since we don't like who won, we've asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in aid. It's not about democracy. It's about making Iraq a "U.S.-friendly" nation.

Or not supporting a terrorist group that's sole mission is the destruction of Israel.

[Guest American Woman]

Palestine recently had a democratic election and since we don't like who won, we've asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in aid. It's not about democracy. It's about making Iraq a "U.S.-friendly" nation.

Or not supporting a terrorist group that's sole mission is the destruction of Israel.

Not to defend Hamas since that's the last thing I'd want to do, but the Palestinians didn't elect them into power to destroy Israel. The destruction of Israel is not their sole mission. But you've made my point. The U.S. would not support a fundamentalist Muslim who wants to destroy the U.S. as a leader, even if that's who the Iraqi people elected. So it's not about making Iraq a democracy. It's about making it a U.S. friendly nation, as I said. Or keeping the U.S. dollar as the currency for trading oil, as Drea said. It's really one and the same from the U.S.'s perspective.

[margrace]

Palestine recently had a democratic election and since we don't like who won, we've asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in aid. It's not about democracy. It's about making Iraq a "U.S.-friendly" nation.

Or not supporting a terrorist group that's sole mission is the destruction of Israel.

Not to defend Hamas since that's the last thing I'd want to do, but the Palestinians didn't elect them into power to destroy Israel. The destruction of Israel is not their sole mission. But you've made my point. The U.S. would not support a fundamentalist Muslim who wants to destroy the U.S. as a leader, even if that's who the Iraqi people elected. So it's not about making Iraq a democracy. It's about making it a U.S. friendly nation, as I said. Or keeping the U.S. dollar as the currency for trading oil, as Drea said. It's really one and the same from the U.S.'s perspective.

We really should give up on the democracy idea. all the US wants in the long run is the protection of its oil base.

[geoffrey]

We really should give up on the democracy idea. all the US wants in the long run is the protection of its oil base.

Watchin' lots of Michael Moore??

If the US wanted its oil base, it'd throw a huge chunk of money into the oilsands and sign a bi-lateral commitment on supply from Alberta. Alot cheaper than the billions spent in Iraq.

Remember that Iraq isn't a huge player in the oil scene. You do know that 10 other countries produce considerably more oil than Iraq. Friendly nations like Saudi Arabia (semi-friendly anyways), Russia, Norway, UAE, Kuwait, Mexico and the UK. Canada is 13th in the world and exports daily almost as much as Iraq.

Sometimes common sense must prevail, but keep with the conspiracy theories if thats what you wish.

Believe it or not, the US does have some sense on how much easier it would be to get oil from any other country than Iraq.

[GostHacked]

Palestine recently had a democratic election and since we don't like who won, we've asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in aid. It's not about democracy. It's about making Iraq a "U.S.-friendly" nation.

Or not supporting a terrorist group that's sole mission is the destruction of Israel.

Sole desctuction of Israel. You know I am getting really tired of people using this excuse. Israel was not even a county before WWII. If anything the Islraelis should be kicked out of the reigion, It is clear they are not welcomed there. Palestine was a large country, then the virus was put in place and now it consumes most of the former country. But I would be called anit-semetic if I had actually said those things.

Stop it, just stop it. Hammas was democraticly (if you will humour me) elected government. The people chose it. And now countires will just have to DEAL with it.

Now onto Iraq and their civil war...Sectrian violence was predicted really, and it is getting worse. Try this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765456.stm where it said that the Bagdahd morgues are getting 780 to 1100 bodies a month for the last year. Just as an average, that is about 90,000 people who according to those officials, most have died due to some torture. Wake up people. It already started. Gangs running the streets in Iraq, just as they do in the burbs of L.A. (ok bad example) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765854.stm To me there is basicly no security, and the only one who can defend you is you and your gun.

[geoffrey]

Or not supporting a terrorist group that's sole mission is the destruction of Israel.

Sole desctuction of Israel. You know I am getting really tired of people using this excuse. Israel was not even a county before WWII. If anything the Islraelis should be kicked out of the reigion, It is clear they are not welcomed there. Palestine was a large country, then the virus was put in place and now it consumes most of the former country. But I would be called anit-semetic if I had actually said those things.

Stop it, just stop it. Hammas was democraticly (if you will humour me) elected government. The people chose it. And now countires will just have to DEAL with it.

Now onto Iraq and their civil war...Sectrian violence was predicted really, and it is getting worse. Try this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765456.stm where it said that the Bagdahd morgues are getting 780 to 1100 bodies a month for the last year. Just as an average, that is about 90,000 people who according to those officials, most have died due to some torture. Wake up people. It already started. Gangs running the streets in Iraq, just as they do in the burbs of L.A. (ok bad example) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765854.stm To me there is basicly no security, and the only one who can defend you is you and your gun.

Yes, countries don't have to support Hamas because they advocate terrorism. Terrorism is not an option ever.

I agree Israel is a little in over its head in the region, but international law does say it has the right to exist, so we have to respect that. It's agressions into Palestine are unforgivable, and I don't support Israel either on this basis. But equally, suicide bombings that attack civilians are never to be condoned, and should be fiscally punished.

It's funny. Your one of those people obviously that say the war in Iraq is illegal according to international law. But then you disregard the law concerning terrorism and the state of the Israel. Do we follow the law or not? You can't selectively be ok with some of it.

[Teddy Ballgame]

There are several reasons why Canadians aren't helping in Iraq.

A lack of a competent and funded military.

A lack of real leadership.

A lack of vision, to see the long-term instead of just the short-term.

And most importantly, our complete obsession for being liked, instead of doing the right thing, but risking being unpopular. It's placed us as one of the world's greatest fence sitters.

- Shady - While I agree that each of the four reasons you posited for our shirking of our global responsibilities and our abandonment of our traditional allies the US and the UK played a part in the decision to stay out of iraq, I submit that you omitted the most important reason of them all.

- For more than six months before the March 2003 Co-alition strike agaisnt Saddam Insane and his murdurous thugs who had enslaved, impoverished, tortured, exhiled and otherwise tormented the more than 80% of Iraqis who weren't part of the ruling Sunni tribe for some 35 years then PM Jean Chretien talked a tough game insofar as the need to topple Saddam and gave Bush and Blair the impression that he would be on side in their mission. As well, number two Liberal and PM In Waiting - Captain Panama Paul Dithers - didn't even dither on this issue and was part of the substantial minority and quite possibly even a slight majority at the time in the Liberal caucus who favoured going into Iraq to topple Saddam.

- However, there was one small problem to consider. While February and March 2003 polling showed that a slight majority of Canadians (55-60%) in TROC favoured us joining our traditional allies in the Iraq incursion, opposition to such a venture was overwhelming in socialist, pacifist, isolationist Quebec, running somewhere between 75-80%. Just five weeks away there would be a provincial election in Quebec and the Liberal leader Jean Charest was running neck and neck with the separatist PQ leader Bernard Landry. The election was considered to be too close to call at that point.

- Jean Chretien - who, unlike Bush, is a true moron who speaks neither official language, looks like the driver of the getaway car, became PM by seniority in kissing ass and climbing the greasy Liberal poll rather than by any discernible merit, and who is unknown to ever have had a single original or creative or important thought or idea in his more than forty years on The Hill - managed always to reduce every issue to the lowest common political denominator rather than to consider the big picture in the long term. Accordingly, he determined that joining our US, UK, Austrailian and other allies in ridding the ME of its most unstable and dangerous and threatening tyrant might very well cost his Liberal counterpart in Quebec the provincial election. Faced with the choice of doing what was principled and important over the long term in the grand scheme of things and doing what was popular and expedient and good for the Liberal Party in Quebec in the short term, this was a slam dunk decision.

- Afterwards, Chretien and his closest advisers came up with various ex post facto bullshit spins to con the rubes and to arm the usual left-lib suspects with rationales for why Canada did its sudden about face regarding Saddam. The funniest one was probably that Canada was not really a sovereign country where foreign policy and military operations were concerned but merely a handmaiden of the UN and would take its direction from that thoroughly corrupted and discredited club for Saddam, Mugabe, Arafat and other dictators. This meant, according to Chretien, that Canada would stand by at the ready and would respond to a UN call to invade Iraq when the UN decided that Saddam had violated enough UN resolutions for long enough.

- Of course, as our only post Korea distinguished general Lewis McKenzie noted in an op-ed piece in the Globe at that time, it was well known by all that the UN would never actually stand up and hold Saddam to account for his continuing violations of numerous UN resolutions and his ignoring of the other obligations he signed on to fulfill after The Gulf War. (As we now know, one of the reasons for the UN's extraordinary tolerance of Saddam was the millions of US dollars in personal fortunes being made by various UN officials and their families and relatives in the Oil-For-Food scam known by the Iraqis as the Oil-For-Palaces program.)

- But let us be very clear on the major reason for Chretien's sudden change of mind. It was all about pandering to Quebec as the petty petit parish pump politican that Chretien has always been. It had nothing to do with principle. If I had more time, I would dig up for you a brilliant article by Caanda's leading military historian Professor Granstein castigating Chretien and the Liberals for allowing petty local politics, especially Quebec politics, to determine our foreign and military policy. I think I'll look for it now.

[Teddy Ballgame]

PARTIAL TEXT OF GRANASTEIN'S REMARKS FROM MARCH 2005:

Leadership failure behind Que. anti-military, anti-U.S. feelings: Granatstein

Fri Mar 4, 2005, 4:31 PM ET

STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - A lack of federal leadership has given Quebec's anti-American and anti-military feelings too much sway in Canadian policy and decision-making, one of the country's top historians said Friday.

They are two factors about which Canadians do not talk - a deep-rooted anti-Americanism, especially in Quebec, and the province's role in shaping defence policy over successive prime ministers, said Jack Granatstein.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has done nothing to counter the feelings or educate Canadians on defence or other issues confronting the two countries, Granatstein told the Conference of Defence Associations annual meeting.

"The Liberals, in fact, have more than their share of anti-Americans."

Quebec politics is the primary reason the Canadian Forces have been allowed to decay over the last 20 years; it's the major reason Ottawa opted out of U.S. ballistic missile defence; and it's the main reason promised military spending increases will never materialize, he told a defence conference.

"By the time of the Iraq (news - web sites) War in 2003, Quebec opinion was the most hostile to the United States and hostile to President (George W.) Bush . . . in Canada," said the author and retired professor.

"Suspicion and fear of the United States has had and is having a calamitous effect on Canadian defence and the Canadian Forces."

Granatstein said his opinions are not a matter of anti-Quebec feeling but a clear reflection of poll results and a history that included a conscription crisis and an anglophone army that discriminated against French Canadians.

"Quebec also has a long history of anti-imperialism, first against the British, now against the United States," he said.

"Opinion polls demonstrate consistently that Quebec is the least supportive region in Canada when it comes to having the government take steps to fix the Canadian Forces."

Granatstein said Quebec's opposition to military spending is not limited to the man in the street.

Four prime ministers from Quebec in the last 40 years - Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin - "slashed the Canadian Forces to the cheers of Quebec MPs and voters."

Martin's government has promised $12.8 billion in new defence spending over the next five years, but most of it is slated to come in years four and five.

With a minority and Liberal belief that Quebec is the only place in which they can make electoral gains, Granatstein said it's unlikely defence will get any real help beyond the "pittance" of $500 million allotted this year.

"The same attitudinal problems affect and shape the ballistic missile defence issue, which was opposed sharply by the Quebec Liberal caucus and by the Quebec Liberal women's caucus," he said.

Likewise, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper "wobbled" on the issue because he feared consequences in Quebec, as did the New Democrats, said Granatstein.

All of the parties are trying to crack or keep Quebec by opposing missile defence and most are openly anti-American and anti-military, he said.

"What is lacking is leadership - leadership from the prime minister," he said. "We desperately need political leadership."

It should be no surprise that most Canadians turned against ballistic missile defence, given "the total absence of leadership by the prime minister and his ministers" and their lack of effort to "counter the lies and misrepresentations" about the program, he added.

Canada needs a prime minister, regardless of political stripe, language or province of origin, who will educate Canadians and "talk more about national interests and less about values - squishy values."

It needs a prime minister who will "argue against pernicious, mindless anti-Americanism and especially to work at persuading francophones that their interests, like all Canadians' national interests, will be better served by a robust Canadian Forces that can protect Canada's friends, Canadian sovereignty and the Canadian people in a dangerous world."

[Black Dog]

Hit the showers, Ballgame. Where did you copy that from anyway? At the end of the day, Canada's reasons for not joining in the Iraq adventure are irreleavant: the end result is we are better off for it.

[Teddy Ballgame]

1/ Hit the showers, Ballgame. 2/ Where did you copy that from anyway? 3/ At the end of the day, Canada's reasons for not joining in the Iraq adventure are irreleavant: 4/ the end result is we are better off for it.

- Black Dog ... 1/ I would but you sound like the type around whom it would be unsafe to drop the soap ... 2/ As I wrote in the previous post, it was an interview with Canada's foremost military historian Jack Granastein, someone who has obviously forgotten more about our military history and policy making than you will ever know, it was copied verbatim from a CP release and what is your point about it or do you prefer just to keep your ignorance covered up by ignoring it? ... 3/ you can't even spell "irrelevant" let alone appreciate that even if something works out to one's advantage by fluke it is always "relevant" and telling to examine the reasons for policy choices and only a moron would claim that reason is irrelevant ... 4/ this is a matter of opinion and obviously we profoundly disagree about it ... you take the view that being the military welfare bum of the entire NATO alliance, forcing the US and other allies to shoulder what should be our fair share of the cost of defending our sovereignty and our western liberal values and those nations who share said values is AN HONOURABLE THING while I believe that we must bear our share of the burden of defending and promoting western liberal values ... I guess for you lefties, anything to do with "welfare" and sponging off others is a good thing, eh? Not for me.