Why didn't Canada join in an uneccessary war?

[geoffrey]

About the direct bash on Harper, Martin also supported going to war.

You're either lying, or mistaken. Are you truely not aware that the oft-repeated quote used to support that is so out of context that calling it support for the war is absolutely a lie?

The Iraqis weren't all happy go lucky before the invasion, no matter what CBC tells you.

The CBC doesn't say that. Try to focus on the truth geoffrey.

Iraq is a bloody disaster. There is no security. The professionals are fleeing the country. No reconstruction can move forward.

Your claim that just becuse Saddam was opressive he needed to be removed is too narrow to take seriously

I'll be interested to see you come back on the Paul Martin claim. It will give a great deal of insight into you.

Well gerry, since you and your left buddies like to pull the hidden agenda card, I'll show you my suspicions of Martin's hidden agenda... except that people in the party actually comfirm this... here some stuff on Martin and the war from his own Liberal buddies:

“When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war.” – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211)

“I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy.” - Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003)

And in his one words, he admits that Saddam was a huge threat to western security. So if he didn't support the war believing his own words, then he's just incompetant or a complete liar:

"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are. That means terrorists have access to all of that." - Paul Martin (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html)

[tml12]

About the direct bash on Harper, Martin also supported going to war.

You're either lying, or mistaken. Are you truely not aware that the oft-repeated quote used to support that is so out of context that calling it support for the war is absolutely a lie?

The Iraqis weren't all happy go lucky before the invasion, no matter what CBC tells you.

The CBC doesn't say that. Try to focus on the truth geoffrey.

Iraq is a bloody disaster. There is no security. The professionals are fleeing the country. No reconstruction can move forward.

Your claim that just becuse Saddam was opressive he needed to be removed is too narrow to take seriously

I'll be interested to see you come back on the Paul Martin claim. It will give a great deal of insight into you.

Well gerry, since you and your left buddies like to pull the hidden agenda card, I'll show you my suspicions of Martin's hidden agenda... except that people in the party actually comfirm this... here some stuff on Martin and the war from his own Liberal buddies:

“When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war.” – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211)

“I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy.” - Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003)

And in his one words, he admits that Saddam was a huge threat to western security. So if he didn't support the war believing his own words, then he's just incompetant or a complete liar:

"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are. That means terrorists have access to all of that." - Paul Martin (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html)

Geoffrey,

Your use of facts in challenging the Liberals is the wrong move...they will accuse you of quoting out of context...

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey,

Your use of facts in challenging the Liberals is the wrong move...they will accuse you of quoting out of context...

Nah, being pro-Iraq was one of the few smart things Martin ever was. But oh well, he can deny one of his few moments of brilliance in the last few years.

The fact that he was so convinced of this nuclear weapons smuggling and didn't push Chretien harder is ridiculous. The man was never a leader.

[tml12]

Geoffrey,

Your use of facts in challenging the Liberals is the wrong move...they will accuse you of quoting out of context...

Nah, being pro-Iraq was one of the few smart things Martin ever was. But oh well, he can deny one of his few moments of brilliance in the last few years.

The fact that he was so convinced of this nuclear weapons smuggling and didn't push Chretien harder is ridiculous. The man was never a leader.

For sure, I was kidding if you saw my quotes...

Martin is very good when he has something to work for. At the top, he doesn't know how he wants to lead...

[newbie]

"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are. That means terrorists have access to all of that." - Paul Martin (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html)

He could just possibly be referring to all the weapons taken out of the unguarded munitions dump at Al Qa Qaa. There wasn't a nuclear program in Iraq. Any facility they had was wiped out in 1991. No WMD was used against the U.S. invaders.

[geoffrey]

Oh boohoo. These are the same type of people that kept the US out of WW2 to the cost of many millions of lives.

I'm a little bit against appeasement from a historical perspective.

[gerryhatrick]

He says it's time for the US to get out because they've become the target...they're the reason the violence continues. He points out that the vast majority of the US enemy in Iraq are Iraqis and that a majority of Iraqis say attacks against US forces are legitimate.

......

If the US wants to help that nation now they'll leave.

That would be foolish, considering anarchy would result...

You make that assumption only because it supports your position that the US should stay. All rightwingers in the Western world supported this war and thus all want to see the US leave when things are rosey in Iraq, not before.

The simple truth that the presence of the US is making it worse at the moment - something widely agreed on by Iraqis themselves - seems to be lost on people who believe as you believe.

Tell us, why would there be more "anarchy" than there currently is? Do you have such little faith in Iraqis to govern thier own affairs without a bunch of US troops running around that you think anarchy would break out?

Why would anarchy result?

Why, instead, wouldn't the different factions and local clerics be able to stabalize the nation given the absence of US inspired violence?

[gerryhatrick]

Well gerry, since you and your left buddies like to pull the hidden agenda card, I'll show you my suspicions of Martin's hidden agenda... except that people in the party actually comfirm this... here some stuff on Martin and the war from his own Liberal buddies:

Shiela Copps (a.k.a. sour grapes) said Martin was working to get the PM to support the war? Oh well then, it must be true.

Shiela Copps has zero credibility.

As for the rest of your comments, they do nothing to support your claim that Martin wanted to join the war in Iraq.

For example, here's the entire quote from Paul Martin:

"The problem is increasingly failed states, or states that are on the edge of failure, the fact that now we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that."

So he's calling post-invasion Iraq the threat...a "failed state".

Here's the full story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

(edit: I see now how you are being misled. STEPHANIE RUBEC from Sun Media is not worth reading if you're interested in unbiased truth)

At least you didn't bring up that quote you were probably tempted to.....but I pre-empted. Good for you!

Your claim that Paul Martin supported going to war is debunked. It's an interesting accusation, one designed to deflect critisism from Harper. I think he was elected in spite of that....mainly because the desire for "change" outweighed it.

[Slavik44]

Oh boohoo. These are the same type of people that kept the US out of WW2 to the cost of many millions of lives.

I'm a little bit against appeasement from a historical perspective.

I thought the conservative phrase of the decade was "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?

It is an act of bad faith and pure hipocrisy to oppose the practice of appeasement, it is an error of ommission. It is easy to sit back and say 60 million people died in World War two, and then to associate every one of those deaths with appeasement, and further then to critisize appeasement as failed, because of those 60 million deaths ignoring the 6 billion lives appeasement sustains. But, please don't take my word for it find out for yourself...try to live a whole week with out appeasing someone or being appeased, appeasement is the foundation of fundemental human interaction, and at one level or another, directly or indirectly it is impossible to live, even just a while, with out it. Besides appeasers didn't keep the U.S out of World war two, isolationists did, and appeasement itself was not the issue in GW2.

[geoffrey]

Oh boohoo. These are the same type of people that kept the US out of WW2 to the cost of many millions of lives.

I'm a little bit against appeasement from a historical perspective.

I thought the conservative phrase of the decade was "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?

It is an act of bad faith and pure hipocrisy to oppose the practice of appeasement, it is an error of ommission. It is easy to sit back and say 60 million people died in World War two, and then to associate every one of those deaths with appeasement, and further then to critisize appeasement as failed, because of those 60 million deaths ignoring the 6 billion lives appeasement sustains. But, please don't take my word for it find out for yourself...try to live a whole week with out appeasing someone or being appeased, appeasement is the foundation of fundemental human interaction, and at one level or another, directly or indirectly it is impossible to live, even just a while, with out it. Besides appeasers didn't keep the U.S out of World war two, isolationists did, and appeasement itself was not the issue in GW2.

Appeasing people by compromise in daily interaction is a little different then selling lives to a dictator.

[Slavik44]

Oh boohoo. These are the same type of people that kept the US out of WW2 to the cost of many millions of lives.

I'm a little bit against appeasement from a historical perspective.

I thought the conservative phrase of the decade was "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?

It is an act of bad faith and pure hipocrisy to oppose the practice of appeasement, it is an error of ommission. It is easy to sit back and say 60 million people died in World War two, and then to associate every one of those deaths with appeasement, and further then to critisize appeasement as failed, because of those 60 million deaths ignoring the 6 billion lives appeasement sustains. But, please don't take my word for it find out for yourself...try to live a whole week with out appeasing someone or being appeased, appeasement is the foundation of fundemental human interaction, and at one level or another, directly or indirectly it is impossible to live, even just a while, with out it. Besides appeasers didn't keep the U.S out of World war two, isolationists did, and appeasement itself was not the issue in GW2.

Appeasing people by compromise in daily interaction is a little different then selling lives to a dictator.

So then you are not opposed to appeasement

[geoffrey]

Appeasing people by compromise in daily interaction is a little different then selling lives to a dictator.

So then you are not opposed to appeasement

I'm not opposed to just compromise. I am opposed to appeasing aggressive nations or terrorist groups.

If I pulled a gun on you and said be my slave or I will kill you, thats not just compromise anymore. I'm sure you wouldn't support that. Where as if I negotiating a compromise, keep my dog quiet and you keep your rabbit from eatting my tulips (ok, I'm really struggling for a good example here) this is reasonable compromise, most people wouldn't call that appeasement for me keeping my dog.

[Slavik44]

I'm not opposed to just compromise. I am opposed to appeasing aggressive nations or terrorist groups.

If I pulled a gun on you and said be my slave or I will kill you, thats not just compromise anymore. I'm sure you wouldn't support that. Where as if I negotiating a compromise, keep my dog quiet and you keep your rabbit from eatting my tulips (ok, I'm really struggling for a good example here) this is reasonable compromise, most people wouldn't call that appeasement for me keeping my dog.

No you are seeing appeasement through the tainted scope of World War two, appeasement is exactly what you dog and bunny example was, a legitimate part of negotiation in the hopes of establishing better relations, in other words it is just that a reasonable compromise or concession. True appeasement is generally done froma position of power. In that case I have the gun and you are currently my slave, you come and ask me, if you can have your own flower garden and I say yes. The opposite that you suggested is nothing short of outright war and Suddam Hussien was not asking to be appeased he was not asking to be permitted to have weapons of mass destruction...In fact if a case is to be made for appeasement going on, it would be the countries that supported George Bush...they appeased him.

[tml12]

Gerry,

"You make that assumption only because it supports your position that the US should stay. All rightwingers in the Western world supported this war and thus all want to see the US leave when things are rosey in Iraq, not before."

Ah, I have that position because only a damn fool would think otherwise given the circumstances.

"Tell us, why would there be more "anarchy" than there currently is? Do you have such little faith in Iraqis to govern thier own affairs without a bunch of US troops running around that you think anarchy would break out?

Why would anarchy result?

Why, instead, wouldn't the different factions and local clerics be able to stabalize the nation given the absence of US inspired violence?"

Iraq needs U.S. troops to stabalize it...soon they will be capable of governing themselves...

[tml12]

deleted

[Montgomery Burns]

shouldn't Canada have rolled over and joined George like Tony did?

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/comm...255E401,00.html

Why isn't Canada supporting the destruction of Iraq? What's WRONG with Canada? Jeez, Stephen Harper was SO RIGHT, we should have joined with the USA cause they're our "best friend in the whole wide world".

I was going to ignore posting on this thread (the OP seems way over the top), but then I saw that you created it as a counterpoint to one of my previous threads.

1) Your source is a big dodgy. It talks about a memo but doesn't say who wrote the memo or what dept it is from. Some anonymous UN source makes a wild claim that "the US thought of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq painted in UN colours".

All these anonymous sources make it look like it was written by Seymour Hersh. Who are these anonymous sources? The mysterious "Lucy Ramirez" from the Rathergate Scandal?

2) Even if the memo did come from someone in Bush's inner circle, it reinforces my belief that Presdident Bush is a man of character. He refused to turn over America's sovereignty to the countries in the UN's Security Council. When I voted for Harper I was voting for my interests and Canada's interest. I don't give a damn what China, France, Russia, or the UN says. Countries are not "friends", they are allies. They put their own self-interests first.

Anyone with half a brain:

knew that Saddam had broken the ceasefire he signed in 1991

knew that Saddam had ignored or violated 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions

knew that Saddam tried to assassinate an American president - an act of war

knew that Saddam repeatedly fired on US and British aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones, and

knew that Iraq was a haven for terrorists

Saddam should have been taken out years ago but the US had a president more interested in getting blowjobs from interns, giving North Korea nuclear material, selling secrets to the Communist Chinese, bombing aspirin factories, and bombing people (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc)--who were absolutely no threat to the US--without the authority of Congress or any resolution or authorization from the hapless UN. And US troops are still there--after Clinton said they would be home for Christmas in 1996.

The 3 biggest arms dealers to Saddam were Russia, France, and China. Respectively, their arms comprised 57%, 13%, and 12% of the total Iraq military. All 3 of these countries were on the Security Council, so they voted to keep the flow of blood money coming from Saddam. Just like Chretien did (daughter married to son of biggest shareholder in France's TotalFinaElf oil company) and Martin did (Saddam invested $1 million in one of Martin's companies--good ole FOI Act .

3) Anyone with a lick of intellectual honesty knows that the Iraq War was very very successful. In 2 years and 9 months, they had 2 historic elections and wrote a historic constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, of religion, and of the press, and then had an election on that too! The massmurdering dictator is in jail and on trial (he actually gets a trial) for his life. This is a milestone for the Middle East and it was deeply embarrassing for Canada when Layton and Martin were bragging about not helping Iraq (during the first 2 debates), just days after the Iraqis had had a 3rd historic election.

If you read the Iraqi blogs, they paint an almost completely different picture of Iraq compared to what the liberal MSM tells you. The Media Research Council did an analysis of the MSMs Iraq War coverage in 2005 - the year Iraq wrote an historic constitution and had 3 free elections. 10% of the coverage was postive, 62% negative, and 28% neutral. According to the liberal media, 2005 was a disasterous year for Iraq!

The MSM is overwhelmingly liberal and I think they even hate Bush more than they hated Reagan--thus the ridiculously biased coverage of Iraq. Has the US even killed 1 terrorist? It seems, according to the media, they only kill innocents.

Perhaps the most precious thing of all will be when history vindicates Bush just as it did Reagan. Speaking ill of Ronald Reagan these days is political suicide. Even the wackiest Democrats are careful what they say about this great man. In the future, American grandkids will be attending George W. Bush Junior High School. How's that taste?

Btw, there is far more support for the Iraq War than the media claims--where they do poll after poll until they get the answer they want:

President Bush re-elected despite probably the most biased election coverage ever. CNN even had 2 Kerry campaign advisors hosting Crossfire.

Tony Blair re-elected to a record 3rd majority. 2nd place went to the pro-war Tories and the anti-war Liberal Democrats finished a distant 3rd.

Australia's John Howard, a staunch US ally, re-elected to a record 4th term.

Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi--re-elected.

Even the pacific Japan sent some people to Iraq and Junichiro Koizumi was re-elected to a 3rd term.

[gerryhatrick]

Iraq needs U.S. troops to stabalize it...soon they will be capable of governing themselves...

Phzzzt. end White House transmission.

Most Iraqis want US forces out. Almost half say it's OK to attack them.

Why is it so hard for the war supporters to see that the time has come to leave? It's got nothing to do with "bleeding hearts" or any of that bullsh#t. The simple truth is that it's more destabalized with US troops there.

[tml12]

Iraq needs U.S. troops to stabalize it...soon they will be capable of governing themselves...

Phzzzt. end White House transmission.

Most Iraqis want US forces out. Almost half say it's OK to attack them.

Why is it so hard for the war supporters to see that the time has come to leave? It's got nothing to do with "bleeding hearts" or any of that bullsh#t. The simple truth is that it's more destabalized with US troops there.

Gerry,

How stupid can you be?

Answer this question: regardless of whether you are left or right-wing do you honestly see Iraq being stable if every non-Iraqi troop left overnight?

Do you REALLY????????

[geoffrey]

Good post Monty.

[newbie]

You had me until you said Bush was a man of character. I treated the rest of your rant as great Sunday evening entertainment. Nice try Monty.

[speaker]

The only positive way that I know to stop this terrible liberal media from reaching inside your mind and turning it to mush is to turn off your tv, quit reading any newspapers, don't go to any blog spots, and make sure you have tinfoil on all the walls and ceilings and floors. Liberal Media, Ha!!!

When one loses all sense of perspective what does one look at?

[Canadian Patriot]

We won't have to worry about the war soon if bush keeps spending money he will tank the economy.

[flashman]

When one loses all sense of perspective what does one look at?

Why Fox News of course!

[Insom Elvis]

Why do so many people think the U.S. goes to war for oil? We have oil. We need more, yes, but being an economic country, we buy it. I don't like Haliburton's involvement but I see that as more of a "oh crap, I forgot you used to have an influence over this trade issue, the people are going to tear us apart moment<" rather than an "Hey side-kick, our evil plot is foiled once again, they know about the oil." Get over it. We have Texas and Alaska, the media watches Bush and everyone he's sneezed on since 1960 with a microscope and if this is all they can come up with, we're running a pretty honest game. Why do soldiers continue to fight for this country, and why do firefighters continue to deploy to these sand dunes to protect the burning rigs continue to do so? They must have faith in something. Screw the oil, people are dying and it needs to stop. You can tell me the Americans bombed a school thinking it was a bomb factory, fact is they hit a bomb factory and the pictures you see are of a school that their great dictator disliked and had shelled. It's our reporters that took the pictures and our editors that peiced them into the storyline, so who's to blame for misinformation? Our media, not our presidency. Clinton tapped suspected terrorist phone lines, he ordered a cruise missile strike of one of Osama's largest meetings at a terrorist camp, and the dunce missed, but still, why hate Bush for continuing to try to protect our country? I'm ashamed at a large portion of America for this, I'd like to think Canada has more sense.

[newbie]

There have been plently of threads on this topic. Do some research.