O'Connor on the Afghan War

[Fortunata]

...Canada's "moral superiority" in saying no

That was moral superiority? Heck, I thought we just didn't believe in Bush's BS.

[jdobbin]

Maybe a look at the Canadian contribution to the First Gulf War might be appropriate. Had the CAF's capability to fight a high intensity ground war changed much between 1991 and 2001? I doubt it. It may well have got worse.

I agree that it wouldn't have made any difference to Chretien. He was always committing troops and equipment we didn't have to politically correct causes which would make him Brownie points.

We had naval and air force personnel as well as soldiers to secure the base Qatar. We had 4,500 people in the region and flew a high ratio of missions.

At the same time Canadian soldiers were deploying for the former Yugoslavia.

Canada had the capability to fight that year and did fight on land, sea and air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Baden-Soellingen

http://www.dnd.ca/health/information/engra...illnesses_e.asp

[tml12]

Chretien majority=in control of the rhetoric and conscious only Paul Martin would face the consequences of his decision, Chretien said "no" about sending troops in. Then (as a true Liberal), showing he was clearly in it for the money, Canadian defense contractors went in to Iraq and have since made lots of $$$ in the country. The elites on the Canadian left clearly cannot show Canada's "moral superiority" in saying no. Plus I think you know we would have gone all the way with a Martin majority. That being said, you may be suprised to know that I did not favour the war in Iraq at all. However, knowing that Canada would end up there (and keeping in mind that Bush is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that would protect us if we were attacked, along with our own courageous men) I thought Chretien should do the noble thing. Instead, he played good politics.

Why not go to Iraq? What is the reason you had for not wanting to go? How would Bush protect Canadian soldiers when he can't even protect his own?

As for the rest of your assertions on Canada and Iraq, please produce some citations. I simply don't believe any of it.

I did not want to go to Iraq because I did not believe Saddam was a terrorist.

I never said Bush would protect Canadian soldiers, I am not sure what you mean by "Bush can't protect his own soldiers," and please tell me what you'd like me to provide citations for and I'll do it.

[jdobbin]

I think it is quite clear that, thanks to Liberal cost-cutting measures, Canada's army could probably not handle Sweden's. And I should add, it is not because of the lack of courage among our brave and courageous soldiers but rather because the army is in need of dire rebuilding after successive Liberal governments let it go to shame. You may not know we used to have the fourth largest army in the world.

I think it was weaponeer who stated that it is disgraceful that leftist Canadians have let down the armed forces through electing successive Liberal governments. I agree.

It is disgraceful right wingers who are not citing any evidence that Canada did not go to Iraq because it was not capable of it. Please produce the evidence of that otherwise I believe you are making stuff up.

[tml12]

...Canada's "moral superiority" in saying no

That was moral superiority? Heck, I thought we just didn't believe in Bush's BS.

Chretien portrayed it as moral superiority and you and I both know it.

[jdobbin]

I did not want to go to Iraq because I did not believe Saddam was a terrorist.

I never said Bush would protect Canadian soldiers, I am not sure what you mean by "Bush can't protect his own soldiers," and please tell me what you'd like me to provide citations for and I'll do it.

I can't recall the reason for the war ever being that he was terrorist. It was about weapons of mass destruction.

And I thought I just read you saying that Chretien should have done the honorable thing and sent troops to Iraq. This is what I read you saying...

"Bush is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that would protect us if we were attacked..."

What did the above mean?

Isn't your argument that Canada was incapable of combat operations until the Conservatives took power this yea?

[jdobbin]

Chretien portrayed it as moral superiority and you and I both know it.

I think it was Harper that took the moral superiority in saying Canada should go. He even wrote to the New Yorks Times to say so.

[tml12]

I think it is quite clear that, thanks to Liberal cost-cutting measures, Canada's army could probably not handle Sweden's. And I should add, it is not because of the lack of courage among our brave and courageous soldiers but rather because the army is in need of dire rebuilding after successive Liberal governments let it go to shame. You may not know we used to have the fourth largest army in the world.

I think it was weaponeer who stated that it is disgraceful that leftist Canadians have let down the armed forces through electing successive Liberal governments. I agree.

It is disgraceful right wingers who are not citing any evidence that Canada did not go to Iraq because it was not capable of it. Please produce the evidence of that otherwise I believe you are making stuff up.

Canada's army endored years of splicing and dicing post-Korea by first Pearson, then Trudeau, and finally Chretien because they knew the U.S. would defend Canada and to create the myth of Canada as a "peacekeeper" while history shows that Canada has never played such a role...Canada used to have the fourth largest army in the world.

Logic dictates Canada probably would have been a burden to the U.S. in Iraq but I would reckon it would again be a global powerhouse with modern equipment after a Harper majority or two.

[jdobbin]

Canada's army endored years of splicing and dicing post-Korea by first Pearson, then Trudeau, and finally Chretien because they knew the U.S. would defend Canada and to create the myth of Canada as a "peacekeeper" while history shows that Canada has never played such a role...Canada used to have the fourth largest army in the world.

Logic dictates Canada probably would have been a burden to the U.S. in Iraq but I would reckon it would again be a global powerhouse with modern equipment after a Harper majority or two.

Citation?

Funny how you ignore Diefenbaker and Mulroney. Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters?

[tml12]

Chretien portrayed it as moral superiority and you and I both know it.

I think it was Harper that took the moral superiority in saying Canada should go. He even wrote to the New Yorks Times to say so.

This demonstrates good diplomacy, unlike PM Chretien's team calling the Americans "assholes" and Carolyn Parrish stepping on Bush dolls.

[tml12]

Canada's army endored years of splicing and dicing post-Korea by first Pearson, then Trudeau, and finally Chretien because they knew the U.S. would defend Canada and to create the myth of Canada as a "peacekeeper" while history shows that Canada has never played such a role...Canada used to have the fourth largest army in the world.

Logic dictates Canada probably would have been a burden to the U.S. in Iraq but I would reckon it would again be a global powerhouse with modern equipment after a Harper majority or two.

Citation?

Funny how you ignore Diefenbaker and Mulroney. Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters?

Be patient, they're coming...

[jdobbin]

This demonstrates good diplomacy, unlike PM Chretien's team calling the Americans "assholes" and Carolyn Parrish stepping on Bush dolls.

This wasn't diplomacy. It was a cheap political move that Harper has carefully tried to distance himself from ever since given what Iraq turned into.

[tml12]

"Despite her small population, Canada had the 4th largest navy in the world."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_hist...econd_World_War

"Behind the charade of peacekeeping, Trudeau destroyed Canada’s once powerful armed forces, leaving the nation a helpless military eunuch, with virtually no international influence, and totally dependant on the much-reviled ‘aggressive’ US for national defense."

Source: http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/...eau_canadas.php

"Early in 2002, Paul Heinbecker, Canada's then-ambassador to the UN, asked members of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs where Canada ranked as a peacekeeper. Most of the audience assumed that Canada was among the top 10 nations. Mr. Heinbecker revealed that Canada was 31st. By March of 2004, Canada had slipped to 38th."

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archi...hp/t-19936.html

"The myth runs counter to the actual history of Canadian military operations since the end of the Cold War: the 1991 Persian Gulf war; the 1993 battle of the Medek pocket in Croatia; the 1999 invasion of Kosovo; and Afghanistan in 2003."

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archi...hp/t-19936.html

[tml12]

This demonstrates good diplomacy, unlike PM Chretien's team calling the Americans "assholes" and Carolyn Parrish stepping on Bush dolls.

This wasn't diplomacy. It was a cheap political move that Harper has carefully tried to distance himself from ever since given what Iraq turned into.

You're entitled to your opinion, though I clearly think you're wrong.

[Wilber]

We had naval and air force personnel as well as soldiers to secure the base Qatar. We had 4,500 people in the region and flew a high ratio of missions.

I didn't say we weren't there but if memory serves me correctly, our ground component was composed of medical and support troops and were not involved as front line troops in the invasion. Our airforce was largely restricted to patrol and air cover, and the navy to patrolling the Gulf. We did not take part in offensive operations because we did not have the equipment to do so. No modern battle tanks, fighting vehicles, attack aircraft or helicopters and no cruise missile equipped ships. Not much had changed ten years later.

[jdobbin]

I didn't say we weren't there but if memory serves me correctly, our ground component was composed of medical and support troops and were not involved as front line troops in the invasion. Our airforce was largely restricted to patrol and air cover, and the navy to patrolling the Gulf. We did not take part in offensive operations because we did not have the equipment to do so. No modern battle tanks, fighting vehicles, attack aircraft or helicopters and no cruise missile equipped ships. Not much had changed ten years later.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

Our frontline troops were committed to Yugoslavia. The Canadian Air Force did fly bombing missions in Iraq.

They flew 56 bombing runs in Iraq.

When “Operation Desert Storm” was launched on 17 January 1991 to liberate Kuwait, the Canadian CF-18s began “sweep and escort” combat missions to support ground-attack strikes by Allied air forces. When the four-day ground invasion into Kuwait was unleashed in late February, the Canadian Hornets also flew 56 bombing sorties, mainly dropping 500-lb. conventional (“dumb”) bombs on Iraqi artillery positions, supply dumps, and marshalling areas behind the lines.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/history_e.asp

[tml12]

I didn't say we weren't there but if memory serves me correctly, our ground component was composed of medical and support troops and were not involved as front line troops in the invasion. Our airforce was largely restricted to patrol and air cover, and the navy to patrolling the Gulf. We did not take part in offensive operations because we did not have the equipment to do so. No modern battle tanks, fighting vehicles, attack aircraft or helicopters and no cruise missile equipped ships. Not much had changed ten years later.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

Our frontline troops were committed to Yugoslavia. The Canadian Air Force did fly bombing mission in Iraq.

They flew 56 bombing runs in Iraq.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/history_e.asp

Wouldn't that technically undermine the leftwing's point that Canada stayed out of Iraq?

[jdobbin]

You're entitled to your opinion, though I clearly think you're wrong.

You don't think he has distanced himself from Iraq? What reason does he have for not supporting the Iraq mission now?

[jdobbin]

Wouldn't that technically undermine the leftwing's point that Canada stayed out of Iraq?

You're confusing Iraqi wars.

[tml12]

You're entitled to your opinion, though I clearly think you're wrong.

You don't think he has distanced himself from Iraq? What reason does he have for not supporting the Iraq mission now?

I do not think Harper has anything to say about Iraq now. Canada is in there contrary to popular thought, doing its part for its allies. I think Harper has been eloquent and straightforward and very diplomatic toward the U.S. as prime minister. Something neither Martin nor Chretien were. I hope you also got a chance to read my citations that you asked for.

[jdobbin]

"Despite her small population, Canada had the 4th largest navy in the world."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_hist...econd_World_War

"Behind the charade of peacekeeping, Trudeau destroyed Canada’s once powerful armed forces, leaving the nation a helpless military eunuch, with virtually no international influence, and totally dependant on the much-reviled ‘aggressive’ US for national defense."

Source: http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/...eau_canadas.php

"Early in 2002, Paul Heinbecker, Canada's then-ambassador to the UN, asked members of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs where Canada ranked as a peacekeeper. Most of the audience assumed that Canada was among the top 10 nations. Mr. Heinbecker revealed that Canada was 31st. By March of 2004, Canada had slipped to 38th."

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archi...hp/t-19936.html

"The myth runs counter to the actual history of Canadian military operations since the end of the Cold War: the 1991 Persian Gulf war; the 1993 battle of the Medek pocket in Croatia; the 1999 invasion of Kosovo; and Afghanistan in 2003."

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archi...hp/t-19936.html

You said fourth largest military earlier.

And I never said that Canada's military didn't suffer many cuts under Trudeau. I asked for evidence from *any* source that Canada couldn't go to Iraq because we had no soldiers capable of fighting there.

[jdobbin]

I do not think Harper has anything to say about Iraq now. Canada is in there contrary to popular thought, doing its part for its allies. I think Harper has been eloquent and straightforward and very diplomatic toward the U.S. as prime minister. Something neither Martin nor Chretien were. I hope you also got a chance to read my citations that you asked for.

If he is straight forward, why doesn't he have anything to say on Iraq now?

[bush_cheney2004]

You're confusing Iraqi wars.

No, not really. Iraq's infrastructure was crippled by GW1 and strangled by UN sanctions supported and enforced by Canada. Peaceniks claimed that 50,000 died per month.

As for the rest of Canadian Forces post WW2 operations in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, it is baffling why so many Canadians are unaware of such things. It is as if NATO's Allied Force, 78 days of sustained bombing without UN SC approval, never happened on PM Chretien's watch.

[jdobbin]

No, not really. Iraq's infrastructure was crippled by GW1 and strangled by UN sanctions supported and enforced by Canada. Peaceniks claimed that 50,000 died per month.

As for the rest of Canadian Forces post WW2 operations in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, it is baffling why so many Canadians are unaware of such things. It is as if NATO's Allied Force, 78 days of sustained bombing without UN SC approval, never happened on PM Chretien's watch.

His confusion was Canada participating Gulf War 2.

And I'm not a peacenik. I know all about Canada in the war years. I did have many questions when it came to invading Iraq. Most of them involved how the nation was going to be fixed after eliminating the regime. I seem to remember being shouted down in forums and even in person.

[bush_cheney2004]

His confusion was Canada participating Gulf War 2.

And I'm not a peacenik. I know all about Canada in the war years. I did have many questions when it came to invading Iraq. Most of them involved how the nation was going to be fixed after eliminating the regime. I see to remember being shouted down in forums and even in person.

Understood, but Canada took a decidedly different position on the Iraq invasion than Germany, France, or Russia. PM Chretien deftly sat on the fence by claiming Canada would follow the UN, and even proposed a compromise plan that would have resulted in war anyway after a few more weeks of inspections. Canada continued to support US/UK operations by:

1) Maintaining frigates on station (Task Force 151)

2) Leaving Canadian personnel embedded in US/UK theatre units

3) Leaving Canadian personnel at CENTCOM

4) Continuing overflight and refueling rights for US tankers and cargo airlift

5) Backfilling for US units in Afghanistan

Prior to March 2003, Canada supported sanctions and approved of Operation Desert Fox in 1998 as well as no-fly zone enforcement without UN approval.