Canadians fighting in Iraq...

[Yaro]

I don't think Canada is in official support of the US position in Iraq, in fact I don't think any of our actions could be reasonably viewed that way. We have provided humanitarian aid that has nothing to do with what is effectively a US occupation.

Whether we support the US in Iraq or not is also somewhat irrelevant, Canadians fighting the US in Iraq should be treated in a neutral manner, exactly the same as a Canadian fighting in any other army in the world against any other army in the world.

It is simply continued sycophancy and delusion that drives some people to view the US as allies, they are not, and I defy anyone to show me an act that the US has performed in the last 20 years that could reasonably be interpreted as an act of friendship.

[Leafless]

newbie

You wrote- "I can't believe the hate for Canada by some individuals on this site."

I didn't get to vote in any referendum concerning important changes to this country that as resulted in this screwed up Canada--DID YOU?

A note to Yaro: The U.S. is the only country in the world that has supported and given Canada the prosperities and freedoms it enjoys to-day.

[Yaro]

Note to leafless: if you want to sit at the big table with the intellectuals write something worthy of response.

[Leafless]

Yaro

What I wrote does have 'MORAL' woth.

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, what would you do with those Canadians who are running around thus country committing acts of intellectual mayhem to destabilize Canada?

Yaro, I would agree with you: both your latest posts.

[Yaro]

What I wrote does have 'MORAL' woth.

Actually no it doesn't. The US has been a hindrance to Canada since its inception, in its birth it stole half of the wealth from what would become Canada's founding families (well the English half at least). It was at the behest of the US that Canada virtually dismantled its military as well as a great deal of its industry.

If you knew the history of Canadian/American relations half as well as I do you would probably despise the US.

The true humour in this comes in of the fact that I don't hate the US, not at all. The US has in all of its actions acted as nations all over the world have its own best interest. I expect it; I anticipate it and I certainly don't think it makes them "evil" or even bad. It is in many ways the sycophancy of some Canadians combined with the overwhelming goodwill of the majority that has created constant generosity towards the Americans that has been the problem with this relationship. Someday Canadians will realize that the US has the best interests of the US at heart, not Canada or the world and at the end of the day there is nothing untoward, unfair, or unjust about that.

[Leafless]

Yarp

The U.S. a hindrence?

It's formation is basically British + Canada + 1-revolution = U.S.

No one forced Canada to become part of it's game plan and Canada did willingly and so did Quebec since Quebec would not be able to survive on it's own if it was not for the rest of Canada.

The U.S. is not perfect but has allowed Canada to prosper without bringing Canada to it's knees which they are in the positon to do so at any time it chooses if they wished to pursue that route.

[kimmy]

I don't think Canada is in official support of the US position in Iraq, in fact I don't think any of our actions could be reasonably viewed that way. We have provided humanitarian aid that has nothing to do with what is effectively a US occupation.

Whether we support the US in Iraq or not is also somewhat irrelevant, Canadians fighting the US in Iraq should be treated in a neutral manner, exactly the same as a Canadian fighting in any other army in the world against any other army in the world.

It is simply continued sycophancy and delusion that drives some people to view the US as allies, they are not, and I defy anyone to show me an act that the US has performed in the last 20 years that could reasonably be interpreted as an act of friendship.

You're right that it's irrelevant whether we support the US position in Iraq. It's irrelevant whether the US are really our "friends". What is relevant is that we do support the new Iraq government.

The assistance we've provided in Iraq is not strictly humanitarian aid. We've provided assistance in training law enforcement officials and government officials. We've provided assistance in rebuilding the country's infrastructure. We've provided assistance in conducting the very elections that resulted in the new government.

You write that we should treat this in a neutral manner, as a conflict between two armies in which we have no favorite. But that's simply not the case. We're not neutral-- we recognize and support the Iraq government but we do not recognize the insurgents. The insurgents are not an army in any formal sense, they're not a legitimate or authorized arm of any constituency that we recognize. So the analogy you wish to create is flawed.

-k

[Guest eureka]

The formation of the US is not British plus. It was the rejection of "Britishness"; of British Institutions; of the British system of legal administration (and of political administration). Thus the constant struggle of the US to maintain a semblance of democracy.

The US has not "allowed Canada to prosper," but, as Yaro says, has constantly sought to bring Canada to its knees. Fortunately for Canada, the US does not have the power to do that as history has demonstrated many times in physical and economic terms.

The US now needs Canada probably more than we need the US. Any concern that it has for Canada arises from its own self absorption and self interest.

[Black Dog]

Gee: does this mean the "flypaper" strategy is working?

[kimmy]

Kimmy, what would you do with those Canadians who are running around thus country committing acts of intellectual mayhem to destabilize Canada?

Yaro, I would agree with you: both your latest posts.

Is your world view so narrowly focused that you can not go for more than a few messages without attempting to steer conversation back to this subject? "The provincialists, children! The provincialists!"

If you wish to try to create a parallel between the exercise of free speech in Canada and the abductions and bombings in Iraq, I suppose that is your choice. I doubt many would find it compelling, however.

What would I do with these miscreants? Since we do have the right to express political views in this country, even if they be misguided, I would say that they will be tried in the court of public opinion. If found lacking, I'm sure they'll receive senate seats and ambassadorships, as is the custom.

-k

[Black Dog]

Before everyone gets all worked up....

James Judd, the director of CSIS, revealed Thursday evening that some of the foreign fighters in Iraq battling coalition troops are Canadians. He said there aren't many, but more are expected to join.

Speaking to reporters at a break during a security conference in Montreal, Judd was asked if Canadians were in Iraq fighting against the American-led coalition. "Yes, I believe so," he said.

He said there weren't many, "we're talking single digit numbers." But he said "we're aware of several others who are contemplating leaving."

Given that foreign fighter make up between just 4 and 10 per cent of the insurgency, and that foreign nationals from non-Arab or North African states make up 5 per cent of that number, we're not looking at a particularily serious issue here.

[Guest eureka]

I suspect, Kimmy, that my world-view may be wider than yours. I grew up in a national environment that looked outward to the world more than any other in recorded history.

However, I find it a little amusing to read the self-righteous pontifications about people (the few, as Black Dog notes) who from some conviction follow a course of action.

What would we say about, say, those Germans who fought for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War. I am sure that every good Nazi would have condemned them in every sense of the word.

[Yaro]

The assistance we've provided in Iraq is not strictly humanitarian aid. We've provided assistance in training law enforcement officials and government officials. We've provided assistance in rebuilding the country's infrastructure. We've provided assistance in conducting the very elections that resulted in the new government.

Fair point, however I would argue that what is happening in Iraq right now is a conflict against a foreign occupier. The US is the target of the insurgency and has been from the start, the only targets of insurgent activity have been those that have always been targets in this type of virtual civil war.

It should also be noted that Canada's support of the provisional government based upon the UN's support was based upon the US already being out of Iraq. It was in every political corner understood to be a way to allow the US a graceful exit from Iraq before it turned into the complete clusterfuck that it has become.

Iraq not so long ago was easily the most advanced country in the middle east, they have all the right people and education to make it so again and since pretty much every non-American strategist from around the world agrees that the best thing that could happen for Iraqi's is for the US to leave I would say that the notion of support for the provisional government is a small issue at best.

Leafless: Ignorning your ignorance of the formative years of Canada and the US for a moment,

The U.S. is not perfect but has allowed Canada to prosper without bringing Canada to it's knees which they are in the positon to do so at any time it chooses if they wished to pursue that route.

So let me get this straight, your stating a moral support of the US after stating this as your evidence of the benifical nature of the US? Because of that is the case then I suggest medication may be your best avenue for a normal life.

[kimmy]

I suspect, Kimmy, that my world-view may be wider than yours. I grew up in a national environment that looked outward to the world more than any other in recorded history.

However, I find it a little amusing to read the self-righteous pontifications about people (the few, as Black Dog notes) who from some conviction follow a course of action.

That's somewhat ironic, considering your activities on this forum amount to little more than self-righteous pontifications about people whose convictions differ from your own. ("The provincialists, children! The provincialists!")

I can respect, or at least tolerate, those who act on their convictions, but not when their actions include savagery.

What would we say about, say, those Germans who fought for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War. I am sure that every good Nazi would have condemned them in every sense of the word.

I hope you don't wish to suggest that people who don't support the insurrection are Nazis. That would be absurd blowhard bloviation even by your own formidable standards. If you wish to draw a parallel between my support for the Iraq government and Nazi Germany's support of Franco, I think you're mistaken.

If you wish to draw a parallel between foreigners supporting the insurrection and foreigners supporting the Spanish republican forces, I think you've missed a key point: the Spanish republican forces were the legitimate arm of a duly elected government; the Iraq insurgency is not.

Actually, I think the more accurate parallel is between the Iraq insurgents and Franco's forces. Like Franco's army, the Iraq insurgents are trying to undermine a duly elected government. Like Franco's army, the Iraq insurgency is a coalition of exhiled military figures and ideological zealots (though, in this case Islamists rather than fascists.)

Do you suppose that the Iraq insurgency has attracted the likes of Orwell and Hemingway? I don't. I suspect there are few in the insurgency who have even read a book (other than the Quran) let alone written any. It's a collection of closed, uncivilized minds, the opposite of what people thought was worth fighting for in the Spanish republic.

Fair point, however I would argue that what is happening in Iraq right now is a conflict against a foreign occupier.

You could argue that, but that's not the position our government has taken.

The US is the target of the insurgency and has been from the start, the only targets of insurgent activity have been those that have always been targets in this type of virtual civil war.

This is simply not true. The insurgency has targeted American soldiers, but it has also ruthlessly attacked Iraqis who have joined the government, Iraqis who have joined the security forces, and believed kidnapped and killed a journalist working for the national broadcast network. You seek to convince me that the insurgents merely wish the US to go home, but that is only part of the goal. They also seek to undermine

It should also be noted that Canada's support of the provisional government based upon the UN's support was based upon the US already being out of Iraq. It was in every political corner understood to be a way to allow the US a graceful exit from Iraq before it turned into the complete clusterfuck that it has become.

The only thing delaying a US withdrawal is the insurgency.

Iraq not so long ago was easily the most advanced country in the middle east, they have all the right people and education to make it so again and since pretty much every non-American strategist from around the world agrees that the best thing that could happen for Iraqi's is for the US to leave I would say that the notion of support for the provisional government is a small issue at best.

I am skeptical of this claim, and I would like to see some credible cites to support it.

I don't believe there are many credible analysts who would argue that the US can leave until the Iraq government is capable of maintaining security for its citizens, and clearly the ongoing activities of the insurgents make a convincing argument that the Iraq government is not yet able to provide security for its people.

-k

[Yaro]

Do you suppose that the Iraq insurgency has attracted the likes of Orwell and Hemingway? I don't. I suspect there are few in the insurgency who have even read a book (other than the Quran) let alone written any. It's a collection of closed, uncivilized minds, the opposite of what people thought was worth fighting for in the Spanish republic.

And I would suggest that you would be astonished by how many VERY well educated Iraqis have joined the insurgencies and how very few of them actually care anything about the Qur’an.

You could argue that, but that's not the position our government has taken.

Actually as I pointed out, our governments position was taken solely as a means to provide the US with a graceful out of Iraq something they have been to dense to recognize. We have never supported the US occupation in Iraq and until the day the US leaves that is what is happening.

This is simply not true. The insurgency has targeted American soldiers, but it has also ruthlessly attacked Iraqis who have joined the government, Iraqis who have joined the security forces, and believed kidnapped and killed a journalist working for the national broadcast network. You seek to convince me that the insurgents merely wish the US to go home, but that is only part of the goal. They also seek to undermine

Blah blah blah, the insurgencies have been ruthless bastards. Well no shit, they for the most part are trying to avoid the installation of a puppet regime. Targeting collaborators has always been a well accepted premise of any guerrilla war.

As for the kidnappings, now you are for the most part confusing al-queda activity for insurgent activity. They are not the same group even though they often appear to be, Al-queda does not want the US out of Iraq, which is how they recruit more people all over the world. In fact I would say that with general support for Al-queda dropping in most Muslim countries you can expect another attack on US soil fairly soon. The insurgency on the other hand made up largely of former troops, and of civilians who were fired upon the arrival of Mr. Bremer is very well educated, very well equipped and just now starting to develop the skills of guerilla warfare. Things will only get worse in Iraq for the US for 2 main reasons; the aforementioned attainment of skills by a group that was designed in every way to be the antitheses of a guerilla outfit, and 2ndly as the Iraqi nationalists becomes more and more determined.

In reality it was this group (the nationalists) which was the key demographic for the US; of course they were completely incompetent in recognizing this but most strategists knew it. You see the nationalists are very important, as long as you have the nationalists you control the word of mouth propaganda, as soon as you lose that vital group of people who actually want what’s best for Iraq, well you lose the war. The US has lost the war they just don't know it yet (although many are starting to suspect it I think).

I am skeptical of this claim, and I would like to see some credible cites to support it.

I don't believe there are many credible analysts who would argue that the US can leave until the Iraq government is capable of maintaining security for its citizens, and clearly the ongoing activities of the insurgents make a convincing argument that the Iraq government is not yet able to provide security for its people.

Actually there’s virtually no credible analyst at this point that will say otherwise, there was always a significant group of analysts who said that a long term stay would most likely result in the lose of nationalist support and after the initiation of shock economics it became almost impossible to find any expert outside the Whitehouse group that was willing to say Iraq would succeed in the long run.

Even noted hawks such as Bremer and Wolfowitz have started to make there excuses. I mean seriously were talking about a group so stupid that when Hans Blix (a noted hawk who believed there were WMD in Iraq) came out of Iraq saying there was no weapons they decided to turn on him like a pack of rabid dogs. A group so stupid that they ignored the advice of ALL of there top staff on terrorism including both Clarke and his successor.

At this point Iraq is at a point where there will be no potential for peace until the US leaves, after the US left Vietnam there was no collapse, and there would be no collapse if they left Iraq.

It should also be noted that while most point out the problems between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis that there has been peace between the groups for the majority of the areas history and the existence of multiple tribes in any one country is not only not exceptional its the norm. Virtually every country in the region has a similar makeup.

As to why the US is staying, that’s simple, because they didn't take the way out that was offered by the UN and now there stuck. If they leave now whether it breaks down or not they are a total and complete failure. They haven't accomplished any of there goals in the region, they haven't established a base of operations outside of Israel, they haven't cemented a puppet democracy and they have no stable forward bases and have no control over the worlds number one oil producing nation (that’s Iraq not Saudi Arabia as so many would like to suggest).

But if you want the assessments of a few key men that agree that the US should pull out you can look up the works of the following men some you might know;

Greg Thielmann, William Clark, Bruce Hoffman, or any of the DOZENS of former high ranking CIA members who have quit over the issues of Iraq.

At the end of the day the current US government is collapsing faster then any government in US history and you can expect a period of severe sulking from the US as it adjusts to the new realities. Combined with economic troubles I can only hope that things get better quickly for the Americans but its sad to see.

[August1991]

Yaro, your entire analysis is based on wishful thinking, and that's rarely a good way to arrive at the truth.

You dislike the US in general and this US government in particular. You want to see it fail. You have wished your conclusion and then you have constructed your arguments to arrive at it. I could find weak points in your arguments but the exercise would probably be pointless. Your conclusion has already been made.

I will make one point that you may consider. Your entire discussion of Iraq focusses on the US. It is as if a foreigner, far from Canada, were discussing internal Canadian politics (BQ, NDP, sponsorship, Quebec, Toronto, Alberta) and saw everything as being influenced or controlled by the US.

I suspect that you have never lived in an occupied country (and it is misleading in the extreme to describe Iraq as occupied). Your arguments say far more about your knowledge and opinions of the US than they do about Iraq and the Iraqi people.

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy!

Turning nasty does not help your argument. It merely emphasises the naivete that underlies much of your eloquence. That you cannot see what is happening to your own country: that it may not be sustainable very much longer, is sad.

Hpwever, I missed nothing about Spain and your long winded evocation of Orwell and Hemingway does not address the point: nor does the legitimacy of the Republican government matter (what was the legitimate authority in Iraq, BTW, before it was overthrown by an illegitimate soorce).

The question in both instances is one of ideology: one of supporters of an ideology( or religion or whatever you want to call it - to preempt you) joining their like thinkers to fight for it.

[Black Dog]

I don't believe there are many credible analysts who would argue that the US can leave until the Iraq government is capable of maintaining security for its citizens, and clearly the ongoing activities of the insurgents make a convincing argument that the Iraq government is not yet able to provide security for its people.

Here's the rub: the U.S. prescence isn't a guarantor of security (as the daily acts of violence show). So, since they aren't making the place any safer, the security argument falls flat. In fact, it could even be argued thet the Iraqi government will be unable to reach any state of readiness as long as it has the U.S. to depend on (not to mention the fact that the Iarqi security apparatus is hopelessly compromised by insurgent infiltrators). Any government that depends on a foreign power for its survival will always lack legitimacy.

The only thing delaying a US withdrawal is the insurgency.

Nonsense. The Shiite militias and the peshmerga would make short work of the Sunni insurgency if given free reign to do so. of course that would be a civil war and would probably lead to the Sunni's being virtually wiped out. Given that, the withdrawl of U.S. trops and the threat of ethnic annihalation might be the motivation the Sunnis need to stand down and talk. Which then brings us back to the problem: the insurgents are the only faction interested in a unified Iraq.

Frankly, the only thing keeping the U.S in Iraq is sheer stubborness.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Any government that depends on a foreign power for its survival will always lack legitimacy.

I am afraid Black Dog is correct. Hamid Karzai is disparagingly known as 'the mayor of Kabul' because his power does not extend outside the city. Same with Allawi, neither of them would live out the week if not for foreign military presence.

Frankly, the only thing keeping the U.S in Iraq is sheer stubborness.

Here, I disagree with Black Dog. The US intends to stay indefinitely. Not in it's current form, but the 'enduring bases' program means that they do not intend to leave, ever.

[Army Guy]

An interesting tibit on new developments on the Khadar family, mentioned in this topic.

My Webpage

[Argus]

I don't think Canada is in official support of the US position in Iraq, in fact I don't think any of our actions could be reasonably viewed that way. We have provided humanitarian aid that has nothing to do with what is effectively a US occupation.

Canada does support the new Iraq government and is opening an embassy there. We are providing assistance, and it is clearly in our interests to see this Arab experiment with democracy succeed. Kimmy's point is pertinent. If a Canadian citizen was known to be running around France or Belgium murdering people he'd be arrested on his return and shipped back to stand trial. The same thing should and likely will happen with any Canadian proven to be involved with terrorist acts in Iraq.

[Argus]

I suspect, Kimmy, that my world-view may be wider than yours.

Perhaps yours is simply much more shallow.

[Argus]

The formation of the US is not British plus. It was the rejection of "Britishness"; of British Institutions; of the British system of legal administration (and of political administration). Thus the constant struggle of the US to maintain a semblance of democracy.

The US has, throughout its history, in most cases, been considerably more democratic than the British.

The US has not "allowed Canada to prosper," but, as Yaro says, has constantly sought to bring Canada to its knees. Fortunately for Canada, the US does not have the power to do that as history has demonstrated many times in physical and economic terms.

The US could have brought Canada to its knees any time it chose to, if it ever really desired that. It could do it easily now, economically or physically. We have no military to speak of and our economy is almost entirely dependant on access to US markets.

The US now needs Canada probably more than we need the US.

Drivel. Sellers always need buyers more than the reverse. The US can buy whatever it buys from us on the world market. We cannot find other buyers for our goods so easily, except, of course, for the oil and gas.

[Yaro]

Drivel. Sellers always need buyers more than the reverse. The US can buy whatever it buys from us on the world market. We cannot find other buyers for our goods so easily, except, of course, for the oil and gas.

Really?

So they can get:

a) oil

water

c) gas

d) wood

e) uranium

and a plethora of other goods. The fact of the matter is that there are a handful of countries on earth that have the natural resources that we have for sale and no country on earth promises to be a long term supplier of these goods. Access to markets has very little practical value to Canadian society as a whole, in fact the only value it has is in the ability to increase efficency beyond what could be accomplished for domestic consumption which is to say it hardly has any value at all.