How Chrétien’s gutsy call on Iraq put him on the right side of history

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hey bozo - i'm not - and i see your comprehension and reading skills are as poor as always

But lying is your stock and trade so....

Oh, you're just lashing out at everyone today? In any case you quoted me but with Beavers post, that's not a lie. What was that about reading and comprehension skills again?  ?

You remind me of George W. Bush.

Edited April 30, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Oh, you're just lashing out at everyone today? In any case you quoted me but with Beavers post, that's not a lie. What was that about reading and comprehension skills again?  ?

naw - just the two of you.

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You remind me of George W. Bush.

You remind me of pee wee herman Except, y'know, less manly. 

[blackbird]

The Iraq war was far more complex that simply finding or not finding weapons of mass destruction as this subject article would have anyone believe.  Chretien probably made the right decision not to join the allies on this one but the reasons likely had more to do with the fact Canada was not prepared militarily and could contribute very little.  Canada's military ability is a kind of embarrassment among our allies. That might have had a lot to do with his decision.  The reason the U.S. and Britain went into Iraq had a lot to do with the War on Terrorism after the 9-11 attack that killed over 3,000 people in New York.  The middle east was a hot bed of terrorists and al Qaida.  When the U.S. went into Iraq, the terrorists from all over the middle east gravitated to Iraq to fight the Americans, particularly al Qaida.  The presence of the U.S. in Iraq acted like a magnet and drew them in to the conflict.  These were known as insurgents and this is what much of the fighting in Iraq was all about.  It was an attempt to weaken al Qaida to the point at which they were no longer a serious threat to the west or America.  I am not sure how anything good was accomplished by Canada.  Canada is a relatively small military power and could not contribute much in any case.  Nobody is losing any sleep over Chretien's decision not to join.  It is a fairly insignificant decision in the international order.  It would have meant very little either way.

" UN inspections during the mid-1990s uncovered a variety of proscribed weapons and prohibited technology throughout Iraq. That country’s continued flouting of the UN weapons ban and its repeated interference with the inspections frustrated the international community and led U.S. Pres. Bill Clinton in 1998 to order the bombing of several Iraqi military installations (code-named Operation Desert Fox). After the bombing, however, Iraq refused to allow inspectors to reenter the country, and during the next several years the economic sanctions slowly began to erode as neighbouring countries sought to reopen trade with Iraq."

Iraq War | Summary, Causes, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, & Facts | Britannica

There are a number of reasons why American and western influence in the middle east is crucial.  One is the west's dependence on the oil and another reason is the balance of power in the world.  Iran has been working to eliminate western influence in the middle east and is a serious threat.  They may be acquiring nuclear weapons which is a major threat to Israel and the west.  America and some allies have been struggling to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, but I don't know if they have had much success.

The war in Afghanistan was actually similar to the Iraq war in the sense both were for the purpose of trying to stop the spread and growth of the al Qaida terrorist threat to the west.

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Iraq war was far more complex that simply finding or not finding weapons of mass destruction as this subject article would have anyone believe.  Chretien probably made the right decision not to join the allies on this one but the reasons likely had more to do with the fact Canada was not prepared militarily and could contribute very little. 

same reason Canada made the "gutsy call" of sending no troops to the first Gulf War neither

[Aristides]

Whatever his reasons, it was the right decision.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Iraq war was far more complex that simply finding or not finding weapons of mass destruction as this subject article would have anyone believe.  Chretien probably made the right decision not to join the allies on this one but the reasons likely had more to do with the fact Canada was not prepared militarily and could contribute very little.

The best way to keep us out of these disasters is to keep starving our military.

The most important reason our allies want us along is to provide a moral shine - the lipstick on the pig IOW.

[Dougie93]

Just now, eyeball said:

The best way to keep us out of these disasters is to keep starving our military.

you only starve the troops of equipment

that doesn't prevent them from being sent into disaster

it simply makes any situation they are inevitably sent into disastrous

as the Canadian boys are expended as cannon fodder downrange into a forlorn hope

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The best way to keep us out of these disasters is to keep starving our military.

The most important reason our allies want us along is to provide a moral shine - the lipstick on the pig IOW.

You are obviously a radical leftist, pacifist.  You live in an alternate reality.  A nation's freedom and democracy exists because they stood up for themselves in the world and protected it, as Canada did in the world wars.  Nations that don't stand up for themselves with some military strength often end up losing their freedom.  They also cannot help others remain free as we are trying to do in the Ukraine.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

same reason Canada made the "gutsy call" of sending no troops to the first Gulf War neither

We sent a token force to get some US brownie points, with small air sea and land components. Cf18s were the only ones who saw combat and got to do some bombing in the final days. 

[blackbird]

Part of the reason Chretien never supported the American in Iraq might have had more to do with the pacifist ideology of the liberals.  That is the reason our military is starved of equipment, men, and resources.   We have few aircraft and are decades behind in acquiring up-to-date fighter jets.  It is all because of the pacifism of the Liberals, especially the NDP, and to a certain extent the Conservatives and many Canadians.  Canada is basically a pacifist country, particularly Quebec, that depends on the Americans and others to look after them militarily.

[myata]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Your bankbench MP probably didn’t know or if he knew he wasn’t spilling the beans to the public yet.

You mean it was a terrible secret? The principles, the law, the UN bulls-t a huge state secret not for a regular employee-representative" nor the public (o horror) to know? Like pretty much anything in this country these days? If your next law will be a secret from (and there are precedents) be sure to know who to thank for that?

Edited April 30, 2023 by myata

[myata]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not really.  He was arrogant and felt that the liberals coudn't be defeated (which was true for most of his time in office for sure).  Arrogance can sometimes look like 'balls of steel' but it isn't. 

Take a worthless, useless, full of it individual, put them in a chair with total power and zero accountability and in a few months to a year a miracle (totally predictable by the way) - near absolute appearance of the balls of steel. Not under the quantum microscope could tell the difference from our all-time heroes, you know the names grateful peasants recite before bedtime. Can't beat "because we can". The public demi-god complex.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The Iraq war was far more complex that simply finding or not finding weapons of mass destruction as this subject article would have anyone believe.  Chretien probably made the right decision not to join the allies on this one but the reasons likely had more to do with the fact Canada was not prepared militarily and could contribute very little.  Canada's military ability is a kind of embarrassment among our allies. That might have had a lot to do with his decision.  The reason the U.S. and Britain went into Iraq had a lot to do with the War on Terrorism after the 9-11 attack that killed over 3,000 people in New York.  The middle east was a hot bed of terrorists and al Qaida.  When the U.S. went into Iraq, the terrorists from all over the middle east gravitated to Iraq to fight the Americans, particularly al Qaida.  The presence of the U.S. in Iraq acted like a magnet and drew them in to the conflict.  These were known as insurgents and this is what much of the fighting in Iraq was all about.  It was an attempt to weaken al Qaida to the point at which they were no longer a serious threat to the west or America.  I am not sure how anything good was accomplished by Canada.  Canada is a relatively small military power and could not contribute much in any case.  Nobody is losing any sleep over Chretien's decision not to join.  It is a fairly insignificant decision in the international order.  It would have meant very little either way.

" UN inspections during the mid-1990s uncovered a variety of proscribed weapons and prohibited technology throughout Iraq. That country’s continued flouting of the UN weapons ban and its repeated interference with the inspections frustrated the international community and led U.S. Pres. Bill Clinton in 1998 to order the bombing of several Iraqi military installations (code-named Operation Desert Fox). After the bombing, however, Iraq refused to allow inspectors to reenter the country, and during the next several years the economic sanctions slowly began to erode as neighbouring countries sought to reopen trade with Iraq."

Iraq War | Summary, Causes, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, & Facts | Britannica

There are a number of reasons why American and western influence in the middle east is crucial.  One is the west's dependence on the oil and another reason is the balance of power in the world.  Iran has been working to eliminate western influence in the middle east and is a serious threat.  They may be acquiring nuclear weapons which is a major threat to Israel and the west.  America and some allies have been struggling to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, but I don't know if they have had much success.

The war in Afghanistan was actually similar to the Iraq war in the sense both were for the purpose of trying to stop the spread and growth of the al Qaida terrorist threat to the west.

The US did not invade iraq in order to draw terrorists from other countries inyo a war. That argument is not only false but absurd and immoral. Imagine if they he US invaded canada and killed thousands of Canadians just because they thought it would draw Russia and Canada would be a good place to fight Russia or to draw tje world’s terrorists into blood battle on Canadian street. Ridiculous. Besides US was already drawing terrorists into Afghanistan. 
 

Bush said American troops would be greeted as liberators and home in a few months without any significant casualties. He said Iraq was actively involved in 9/11 and/or actively working with AlQaeda, which were all lies. Not errors, not mistakes, not misunderstandings. Deliberate lies  

The UN weapons inspectors you mention were the first to call BS on Bush’s bogus WMD claims and the Republicans savagely attacked them for it. 
 

Finally “the allies” as you call them was a joke of a coalition meant to provide Bush with a fig leaf of legitimacy for what was really just a US invasion. 90% of the coalition was US troops. Almost all of the remaining combatant force was British with a few.Australians. The other “allies” in the so-called coalition only contributed supplies or or suppoting elements like hospitals far from the fighting. The tropical island nation of Palau for instance is a member of the coalition despite not having any military. Morocco offered 2,000 monkeys for setting off landmines. The others made similar useless symbolic gestures to appease Bush. Im sure canada could have met or exceeded those countries’ contributions even with our dilapidated  forces which wee already fighting and dying in Afghanistan. 

[BeaverFever]

35 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Part of the reason Chretien never supported the American in Iraq might have had more to do with the pacifist ideology of the liberals.  That is the reason our military is starved of equipment, men, and resources.   We have few aircraft and are decades behind in acquiring up-to-date fighter jets.  It is all because of the pacifism of the Liberals, especially the NDP, and to a certain extent the Conservatives and many Canadians.  Canada is basically a pacifist country, particularly Quebec, that depends on the Americans and others to look after them militarily.

That is more of an accurate statement in general, notwithstanding that the Liberals continued ground missions in Bosnia, sent an army battlegroup and an oversized squadron of CF18s into Kosovo where the latter dropped a half million pounds of explosives, participated in more than 10% of all allied air missions despite being only 2% of the coalition air force, leading nearly half of those missions.  They also sent a large battle group to Afghanistan. 
 

But also everyone knew that the justification provided for Iraq was just bogus. 

[BeaverFever]

42 minutes ago, myata said:

You mean it was a terrible secret? The principles, the law, the UN bulls-t a huge state secret not for a regular employee-representative" nor the public (o horror) to know? Like pretty much anything in this country these days? If your next law will be a secret from (and there are precedents) be sure to know who to thank for that?

It was announced when the time was right and not prematurely, just like any other given in history. It’s not a violation of democracy for government to wait until the time is right to announce something to the world . The public doesn’t have a right to know what all government leaders are thinking in real time. Are you under the false impression that it’s ever been any different with any other party?

 

Honestly your whole complaint is the at the Prime Minister of Canada knew the country’s geopolitical strategy and war policy before you did? Gimme a break 

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But also everyone knew that the justification provided for Iraq was just bogus. 

You have not explained why the U.S. went into Iraq if it was not part of the war on terrorism and also to maintain the U.S. presence in the middle east.  Were you in favour of the west going into Afghanistan?

[PIK]

Then chretien sent our very poorly equipped army into Afghanistan.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Do you know all these details or you are just interacting with people that just yell slogans to get you happy?! Brother @blackbird, please come to reason and let's have a discussion with a critical view. 

No, I am not an expert on the Iraq war.  Just stated a few thoughts that came to mind.  I could be wrong.  I don't really think it is worth spending hours researching and studying. 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

You are obviously a radical leftist, pacifist.  You live in an alternate reality.  A nation's freedom and democracy exists because they stood up for themselves in the world and protected it, as Canada did in the world wars.  Nations that don't stand up for themselves with some military strength often end up losing their freedom.  They also cannot help others remain free as we are trying to do in the Ukraine.

9/11 was not a World War.

I fully support Ukraine's war against Russia's invasion.

You have no business talking about reality.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

You have not explained why the U.S. went into Iraq if it was not part of the war on terrorism and also to maintain the U.S. presence in the middle east.  Were you in favour of the west going into Afghanistan?

The burden of an explanation for invading Iraq is entirely on the shoulders of the invaders.

As for Afghanistan and speaking for myself, no, we should not have gone into Afghanistan. There wasn't a single 9/11 attacker from Afghanistan. 15 were from Saudi Arabia. Now that's not to say I would have supported a war against Saudi Arabia but I most certainly would have supported crippling sanctions against them including blockading their exports of oil if they chose to be uncooperative about bringing the people responsible for 9/11 to justice.

Edited May 1, 2023 by eyeball

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The burden of an explanation for invading Iraq is entirely on the shoulders of the invaders.

As for Afghanistan and speaking for myself, no, we should not have gone into Afghanistan. There wasn't a single 9/11 attacker from Afghanistan. 15 were from Saudi Arabia. Now that's not to say I would have supported a war against Saudi Arabia but I most certainly would have supported crippling sanctions against them including blockading their exports of oil if they chose to be uncooperative about bringing the people responsible for 9/11 to justice.

If you going to comment on it, you should show you have some understanding of the subject. 

"The al Qaeda training camps are an integral part of the terrorist organization. All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as the operatives in the Cole attacks and the African Embassy bombing attended Afghan training camps.   

The reciprocal relationship between al Qaeda and the camps was essential for the preservation of the organizatison: the camps provided the manpower for the terrorist activities, and the successfully executed attacks increased camp recruitment and enrollment numbers.

The training received at al Qaeda camps was geared towards a number of possible scenarios. Although most recruits received conventional warfare training, al Qaeda needed foot soldiers, heavy machinery operators, and individuals who could bomb embassies or hijack planes. Specfic terrorist training was given only to the top recruits that Bin Ladin personally evaluated.

The atmosphere of the camps encourged recruits to develop creative ways to create mass murder. The curriculum was based on the ideology that Israel and the United States were evil. Martyrdom was the most highly achieved state which encouraged many recruits to volunteer to go on suicide missions."

"Al-Qaida / Al-Qaeda Terrorist Training Camps (globalsecurity.org)

Edited May 1, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The US did not invade iraq in order to draw terrorists from other countries inyo a war. That argument is not only false but absurd and immoral.

The U.S. declared the War on Terrorism wherever they could be found.  Terrorists know no border and the war against terrorism knows no border either.  That has been the U.S. position.

Edited May 1, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

9/11 was not a World War.

Nobody said it was.  But it was an attack by al Qaeda that killed over 3,000 people.  It was something that had to be dealt with on by a multi-country approach.  Terrorists know no borders.  Hence the war on terrorism.

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

As for Afghanistan and speaking for myself, no, we should not have gone into Afghanistan.

the Liberals simply embraced the false narrative of "Iraq War Bad, Afghanistan War Good"

when it was the same war being conducted under the same justifications

if Afghanistan must be occupied for twenty years, why not Iraq ?

Edited May 1, 2023 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, I am not an expert on the Iraq war.  Just stated a few thoughts that came to mind.  I could be wrong.  I don't really think it is worth spending hours researching and studying. 

the strategy for Afghanistan & Iraq was the same, and it was rather simplistic

the assertion was that both of these states posed an existential threat to the West

and that the only way that this threat could be eliminated

was to occupy these countries and then convert them into Western liberal democracies somehow