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

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

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

Sure let's start at the beginning then. Decades of US interference in the Middle East and surrounding region and specifically propping up a variety of bloodthirsty dictatorships are what lead to 9/11.

Root causes. Surely you recall that term.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

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.

Okay, but it didn't need to be dealt with by military invasions - ignoring other people's borders in other words.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

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 ?

Neither needed occupying.

[myata]

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It was announced when the time was right and not prematurely, just like any other given in history.

Yes one day he just broke it "Canada will not participate". Shortly after the meeting he wasn't invited to. No public discussion, employee representatives a parody of representative democracy. In this setting it doesn't even matter if the decision was right or wrong because there's no accountability or transparency, no way for the society to know what factors and considerations went into it. It could have been caused by a wasp bite for all we know, the great gutsy genius moment. "Just watch us".

Edited May 1, 2023 by myata

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Neither needed occupying.

hence why there was no "gutsy call" by the Liberals

it was purely cynical, they knew they had to occupy something, so they chose Afghanistan over Iraq

there was no moral high ground there

Afghanistan was actually the more intractable occupation

between the two, the Iraq War was the far more successful in terms of its objectives

Iraq is a democracy know, and comparatively stable

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Oh Almighty, here I am, thinking that you want to engage in debates and discussions. Isn't this a debate board? Or is it a "safe space" where only certain thoughts are allowed without analysis?!

I do debate issues.  Why are you focused on attacking me personally rather than speaking to the issue.  

I will comment when I feel like it and if I think I have something worthwhile to add.  But I am not going to dive into a debate about what this or that politician or bureaucrat said about Iraq.  That is a hopeless road to go down.  

I just think the whole premise of the post that Chretien made some kind of earth-shattering, marvelous decision is greatly overblown.  Iraq represented many threats in different ways and Saddam was a brutal dictator even if he was not aligned with a particular Islamist group at that particular time.  

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Okay, but it didn't need to be dealt with by military invasions - ignoring other people's borders in other words.

That is naive.  We are talking about large international terrorist organizations, in this case al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which had training bases in Afghanistan with the support of the government.  The Afghan government, the Taliban, refused to abolish the training base(s).  There was no other choice but to go in and take control.  Iraq was the source of problems as well and Saddam was a dangerous, brutal dictator that had to be removed.  Saddam never worried about other countries borders when he sent Scud missiles into Israel and when he invaded Kuwait either.  Terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda, do not respect borders when they attacked the American navy ship in the middle east or when they attacked an embassy in Africa or when they attacked the twin towers on 9-11.  You comment about ignoring borders sounds a bit ludicrous.  I don't see how it is possible to have a sensible conversation with that kind of mindset.

Edited May 1, 2023 by blackbird

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That is naive.  We are talking about large international terrorist organizations, in this case al Qaeda in Afghanistan,

What about the case of large powerful nations like America propping up dictators in the Middle East and surrounding regions? Obviously it was impossible to have a sensible conversation with them which is why terrorist groups emerged.

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about the case of large powerful nations like America propping up dictators in the Middle East and surrounding regions? Obviously it was impossible to have a sensible conversation with them which is why terrorist groups emerged.

Again naive.  I guess you don't understand how the world works.  Many countries in the middle east are associated with the west.  It is necessary for America and the west to maintain association with middle eastern countries otherwise Communist countries and Islamic dictatorships will expand their influence and become a threat to the west.  America and the west can't maintain those associations without the use of force sometimes to resist Islamic powers and hostile dictatorships.  The hostile powers are constantly working to increase their power by attacking western militaries and infrastructure.

[blackbird]

35 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I agree that Saddam was a brutal dictator, but one should also question the actions of politicians is my main point, especially when they ignore their intelligence community. 

The CIA's correct conclusion of the alleged "link" between Saddam and Al Qaeda was ignored by the politicians mentioned above, they made their own wrong assessment, in my estimation and the politicians started an unnecessary war.

• Let me bring it to today, recently, CSIS has been warning about certain issues, I understand is a different type of assessment and warning, but I think it's important to pay attention to their warnings, or should the politicians do what they want, ignoring the intelligence warnings and acting with their own agenda?! 
• And did not mean to make it personal, however, you stated your opinion that the war in Iraq should not be studied, I disagree - like in a democracy, for the above reasons. 

OK I agree with that.  Of course intelligence communities and experts should be listened to.  I have no way of knowing who was correct.  

As for CSIS and Chinese interference, there seems to be a big problem with it in Canada.  I suspect CCP interference has been going on for decades, but we have heard little to nothing about it until recently.  So the question is what has CSIS been doing all these years.  Why has the public not been told what is going on until now?  Why is the public kept in the dark about foreign interference?  The only way the public found out was when a CSIS employee leaked the information to the media.  We are supposed to be a democracy.  We can't function as a democracy if we don't know what is going on.  Knowledge is necessary.  The government seems to think they are the only ones that have a right to know what is going on.   I would not trust government or intelligence agencies always.  They seem to have failed us.

Yes, you can study the history and situation in Iraq.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just can't spend a huge amount of time on it myself.  

Edited May 1, 2023 by blackbird

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Again naive.  I guess you don't understand how the world works.

I know how you work, the Christian Golden Rule of doing unto others yadda yadda doesn't apply to America.

31 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The hostile powers are constantly working to increase their power by attacking western militaries and infrastructure.

No one was attacking the US in 1953 when they overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran.

America's success in this venture set the stage for disaster - just like taking a bite from a forbidden tree or something.

[I am Groot]

On 4/30/2023 at 2:40 AM, August1991 said:

I met Chretien on several occasions.

I agree. He's a gutsy guy.

And a crook. Let's not forget that.

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure let's start at the beginning then. Decades of US interference in the Middle East and surrounding region and specifically propping up a variety of bloodthirsty dictatorships are what lead to 9/11.

Russia did the same thing for the same amount of time. So did China, to a lesser degree. How come world terrorists didn't go after them? 

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is naive.  We are talking about large international terrorist organizations, in this case al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which had training bases in Afghanistan with the support of the government.  The Afghan government, the Taliban, refused to abolish the training base(s).

there was only one training base, at Tarnak Farms

when 3 VP got there in April of 2002

they found that it had already been destroyed by Bill Clinton's Tomahawk cruise missile strike

as to the Taliban turning AQ over to America ?

what makes you think the Taliban had any control over AQ ?

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

I know how you work, the Christian Golden Rule of doing unto others yadda yadda doesn't apply to America.

False equivalency.   So so-called Christian Golden Rule as you call it, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not have anything to do with the struggles between world powers or nations.  That is a principle of dealing between two individuals in certain circumstances.   Do you seriously think Russia, China, Iran and other dictatorships are Christian nations that would follow Christian principles in dealings between nations who they think are evil?  

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

No one was attacking the US in 1953 when they overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran.

I am not familiar with every detail or incident that happened in the last 100 years and I am sure you are not either.  Pointless to pick a particular occurrence and try to use it in a general discussion about world affairs as some kind of deciding factor.  There is much more to world affairs than one occurrence 70 years ago.  No country is perfect but as a western citizen I support our western democracies and human rights we have.  No such democracy or human rights exist in most countries in the middle east.  I am not mixed up like some people on here seem to be.  

Edited May 1, 2023 by blackbird

[Nationalist]

I was proud of Jean for the most part. Especially the decision to not be one of Bush's puppets in The Coalition Of The Willing.

 

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not familiar with every detail or incident that happened in the last 100 years and I am sure you are not either.

leftists will portray Mossedegh as some kind of freedom fighter

but he was actually a tyrant who granted himself dictatorial emergency powers once elected

under Mossadegh, Iran would have inevitably fell under the control of the Soviets

1953 was the brink of World War Three with the  Hydrogen Bomb entering the conflict

so America & Britain took steps to secure the oil in Persia, in preparation for all out war

[Dougie93]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I was proud of Jean for the most part. Especially the decision to not be one of Bush's puppets in The Coalition Of The Willing.

no single Canadian has done more damage to the Canadian Forces than Jean Chretien

Jean Chretien was the Decade of Darkness

so by 2003, Canada didn't have anything left to send to the Coalition of the Willing anyways

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Russia did the same thing for the same amount of time. So did China, to a lesser degree. How come world terrorists didn't go after them? 

They probably know America should know better than to behave like Russia and China.  When the shiniest beacon for  democracy on the planet knocks off a democracy for the purpose of installing a dictator it's every bit as shocking as when a priest diddles a child.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I am not familiar with every detail or incident that happened in the last 100 years and I am sure you are not either.

It should be obvious to then that I'm more familiar than you if you're unaware of what the US did in Iran.

 

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

False equivalency.   So so-called Christian Golden Rule as you call it, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not have anything to do with the struggles between world powers or nations.  That is a principle of dealing between two individuals in certain circumstances.

Okay then let's talk about what certain individuals did and didn't do with regard to Iran. Truman refused to bite the apple when Britain asked America to go overthrow Iran's elected government for them and Eisenhower said sure.

Which duly elected leader was acting more Christian like with regards to their treatment of another duly elected leader?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

leftists will portray Mossedegh as some kind of freedom fighter

but he was actually a tyrant who granted himself dictatorial emergency powers once elected

Bullshit.  He asked an elected Iranian parliament to grant him emergency powers.

Quote

 

More popular than ever, a greatly strengthened Mosaddegh introduced a single-clause bill to parliament to grant him emergency "dictatorial decree" powers for six months to pass "any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#:~:text=More popular than ever%2C a,educational reforms"%2C in order to

 

He probably also realized that he only had a short window in which to get Iran's house in order before the world's powers started interfering in it...and we all know how this turned out don't we?

With a whole lot more dictatorships, terrorists, more powerful commies and we're just as close if not closer to nuclear war than ever before

Good job. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by eyeball

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit.  He asked an elected Iranian parliament to grant him emergency powers.

He probably also realized that he only had a short window in which to get Iran's house in order before the world's powers started interfering in it...and we all know how this turned out don't we?

With a whole lot more dictatorships, terrorists, more powerful commies and we're just as close if not closer to nuclear war than ever before

Good job. 

ridiculously simplistic nonsense

Mossadegh wasn't universally popular

the Shah had his own base of support

"but, but Mossadegh was elected !"

so was Adolf Hitler

Eisenhower was faced with Iranian nationalization of oil and flipping to the Soviets by default

in 1953, on the brink of war with Hydrogen bombs

America wasn't having Iran falling under the control of the Tudeh Communists and their Soviet backers

this was 1953 on the brink of using nuclear weapons in Korea

Eisenhower wasn't messing about, not with the H-bombs coming next

 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

ridiculously simplistic nonsense

Mossadegh wasn't universally popular

the Shah had his own base of support

"but, but Mossadegh was elected !"

so was Adolf Hitler

Eisenhower was faced with Iranian nationalization of oil and flipping to the Soviets by default

in 1953, on the brink of war with Hydrogen bombs

America wasn't having Iran falling under the control of the Tudeh Communists and their Soviet backers

this was 1953 on the brink of using nuclear weapons in Korea

Eisenhower wasn't messing about, not with the H-bombs coming next

 

Ah you're full of crap dougie. Get on the right side of history for a change.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Ah you're full of crap dougie. Get on the right side of history for a change.

the right side of history was winning the Cold War without having to fight World War Three

mission accomplished

well done, General Eisenhower & Co

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

the right side of history was winning the Cold War without having to fight World War Three

mission accomplished

well done, General Eisenhower & Co

History is still unfolding, it's not static.