Harper Conservative Lies of Omission

[hiti]

During the election 2005 Harper said: “On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country.” http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051210-...6478r_page2.htm By saying this, Harper was clearing trying to cover up the fact that he supported Canada joining the coalition of the willing.

Here are examples of Steve saying he wished Canada had been part of the coalition of the willing. “On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. In our judgment, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.” (Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003)

"We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein." March 26 2003 7 days after the war started, some two weeks before the collapse of Saddam’s regime."

http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2004/05/20/So_W...DID_Harper_Say/

So where is the lies of omission? Saddam Hussein has long since been removed from power. His government fell on April 8 2003 and he was fished out of Spider hole in December 2003. Yet Harper speaks as if it were not already a done deal. By speaking of the Saddam regime in the present tense rather than in the past tense he was able magically go back in time and state his position was that he will not send troops to help overthrow Saddam.

Imagine that the Swiss had declared in 1948 that “we support the removal of Hitler from power.”

[dlkenny]

So where is the lies of omission? Saddam Hussein has long since been removed from power. His government fell on April 8 2003 and he was fished out of Spider hole in December 2003. Yet Harper speaks as if it were not already a done deal. By speaking of the Saddam regime in the present tense rather than in the past tense he was able magically go back in time and state his position was that he will not send troops to help overthrow Saddam.

Imagine that the Swiss had declared in 1948 that “we support the removal of Hitler from power.”

Right, I think he does support the idea of a free and democratic Iraq. In retrospect its easy to say "no, I wouldn't have sent our troops there" but realistically it may have been different at the time. That said, I think Stephen Harper is a decisive leader and frankly under Jean Cretien it wasn't so much that Canada said "no" to the war in Iraq that bothers Harper it was the lack of leadership on making that decision. If you remember he (Jean Cretien) didn't make a decision but just dithered and waited until it was too late and said later that he didn't think it was a good idea. That's quite strange because Cretien was a pretty decisive leader.

One other thing, I mentioned in another post that in areas of Iraq where British Troops are concentrated there is significantly less violence. This has been attributed to the British Forces training in peacekeeping. The US forces are combat soldiers and aren't trained in peace keeping. Furthermore, George Bush said quite blatantly last year to Tony Blair in regards to the British "They're doing a fine job but there just aren't enough of them." Perhaps Harper is suggesting a future offer to Bush for Canadian Forces in a peacekeeping role to help secure Iraq. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing as it would probably build relations with the US and it would likely give the green light to some Canadian companies interested in helping to rebuild Iraq.

[Catchme]

Well, I guess you haven't heard dlkenny, our Canadian Military were NEVER Peace Keepers, that is a myth that Canadians hold that was never true, our military has always been combat, and was never Peace Keeping.

[Figleaf]

If you remember he (Jean Cretien) didn't make a decision but just dithered and waited until it was too late and said later that he didn't think it was a good idea. That's quite strange because Cretien was a pretty decisive leader.

That's not exactly how it went. Chretien was clearly against the program to go in, and voiced his preference for letting inspectors finish thier work. If he was restrained in voicing outright refusal to join into an invasion, it was no doubt out of a desire to give US diplomacy the scope they want.

Perhaps Harper is suggesting a future offer to Bush for Canadian Forces in a peacekeeping role to help secure Iraq. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing as it would probably build relations with the US and it would likely give the green light to some Canadian companies interested in helping to rebuild Iraq.

Oh, no. There is no way on Earth that Canada should become involved in anything having a hint of a smidgen of a dash to do with Bush's criminal ventures in Iraq.

[Canadian Blue]

Well, I guess you haven't heard dlkenny, our Canadian Military were NEVER Peace Keepers, that is a myth that Canadians hold that was never true, our military has always been combat, and was never Peace Keeping.

No, we do some peacekeeping, it's just that peacekeeping isn't what the entire military is about, as is evident with the Cold War.

[Catchme]

Perhaps Harper is suggesting a future offer to Bush for Canadian Forces in a peacekeeping role to help secure Iraq.

Oh, no. There is no way on Earth that Canada should become involved in anything having a hint of a smidgen of a dash to do with Bush's criminal ventures in Iraq.

Oh, I agree figleaf, it is Bush's criminal ventures, in Iraq, and indeed Afganistan, but we have no peacekeepers anyway, we never have had any peacekeepers. If Harper sent troops they would be combat troops as Peace Keeping is a Canadian myth, and not a fact or a reality. Again, please remember we have no peace keeping abilities in our military.

Not only that, our military may well be up on charges at the ICC level for actions in Afghanistan, so who knows if we will even have a military in the future.

Perhaps Hillier and O'Connor should be resigning and thereby save the inncocent regular military personal.

[jenny]

No, we do some peacekeeping, it's just that peacekeeping isn't what the entire military is about, as is evident with the Cold War.

What is with this we I keep reading?

You are in Winnipeg, spnding your days on an internet forum.

Hardly saving the world from terrorists

[dlkenny]

Well, I guess you haven't heard dlkenny, our Canadian Military were NEVER Peace Keepers, that is a myth that Canadians hold that was never true, our military has always been combat, and was never Peace Keeping.

That's wrong, they are both. My cousin spent 36 weeks over two years in training (in between semesters at RMC) for this purpose, don't tell me they're not peacekeepers. What most don't understand is that peacekeeping isn't always peaceful, their job is to curb violence.

[newbie]

Well, I guess you haven't heard dlkenny, our Canadian Military were NEVER Peace Keepers, that is a myth that Canadians hold that was never true, our military has always been combat, and was never Peace Keeping.

"...Peacekeeping has traditionally been a primarily military activity but Canadian involvement in international peace support operations has expanded in response to the complex emergencies that we now face..." link

[Canadian Blue]

What is with this we I keep reading?

You are in Winnipeg, spnding your days on an internet forum.

Hardly saving the world from terrorists

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing/site/index_e.asp

It's better than PMing people, asking if they want to engage in a three way.

Not only that, our military may well be up on charges at the ICC level for actions in Afghanistan, so who knows if we will even have a military in the future.

Catchme, is that a wet dream you have or do you base anything on you know real news. The UNITED NATIONS has sanctioned military action in Afghanistan. If we are brought up before the ICC then we should immediately pull out of the UNITED NATIONS.

Why is it that some people just love the notion of putting our troops on trial as war criminals.

[jenny]

It's better than PMing people, asking if they want to engage in a three way.

]

Catchme, is that a wet dream .

Please CB

This is a forum children can read, and here you are bringing up sex

[Catchme]

Well, I guess you haven't heard dlkenny, our Canadian Military were NEVER Peace Keepers, that is a myth that Canadians hold that was never true, our military has always been combat, and was never Peace Keeping.

"...Peacekeeping has traditionally been a primarily military activity but Canadian involvement in international peace support operations has expanded in response to the complex emergencies that we now face..." link

newbie, oh I know all this, but many spent thread after thread here stating we weren't peacekeepers, never had been, and now wow, all of a sudden we are again. Amazing really. Just had to see if the usual culprits would now try to say we are peacekeepers when it could be now used to be convienent to send troops to Iraq. And I was correct. Another ploy to try and send our military into combat and nothing more you see. To bad they were not consistent, and that there were NOT so many threads here where they denied we were peacekeepers.

And now that the Karzi government has disappeared peoples that our troops turned over to them, meaning we Canadians are in breach of the Geneva Conventions and of the contract signed with the Afghans

If individual Canadian troops were aware that the people they were turning over were in fact going to be disappeared, or tortured and they did nothing tp prevent it, then they are guilty of crimes against humanity, as well. It has nothing to do with the UN resolution whatsoever, and everything to do with the contract Hillier signed and the Geneva Convention.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, no. There is no way on Earth that Canada should become involved in anything having a hint of a smidgen of a dash to do with Bush's criminal ventures in Iraq.

Does that include lucrative oil services contracts for Canadian companies (e.g. Ironhorse Oil & Gas - Himrin Field)?

Or military contracts for rotary wing attack aircraft (Apache) transmission parts (Derlan) and many others?

Or PM Martin hosting election process planning for Iraqi "democracy" in 2004 (Forum 04) to give "Bush's criminal ventures" legitimacy?

Or military overflight and refueling rights for war materials heavy airlift to Iraq?

Or...(pick your own gross exception to the "smidgen of a dash" rule)

[Canadian Blue]

newbie, oh I know all this, but many spent thread after thread here stating we weren't peacekeepers, never had been, and now wow, all of a sudden we are again. Amazing really. Just had to see if the usual culprits would now try to say we are peacekeepers when it could be now used to be convienent to send troops to Iraq. And I was correct. Another ploy to try and send our military into combat and nothing more you see. To bad they were not consistent, and that there were NOT so many threads here where they denied we were peacekeepers.

Catchme, I remember that debate you had, and you said the ALL the Canadian Forces does is peacekeeping which is of course false since the scope of the CF is more than a baby blue beret.

And now that the Karzi government has disappeared peoples that our troops turned over to them, meaning we Canadians are in breach of the Geneva Conventions and of the contract signed with the Afghans

No, that's the Afghan government who is in breach of the Geneva Convention if they infact are found guilty [which they haven't been].

For some reason I doubt you even know anything about the Geneva Convention, as a popular cliche made by many around here is "war crime", even though many will throw the term around without knowing what it actually implies simply because they disagree with a conflict.

If individual Canadian troops were aware that the people they were turning over were in fact going to be disappeared, or tortured and they did nothing tp prevent it, then they are guilty of crimes against humanity, as well. It has nothing to do with the UN resolution whatsoever, and everything to do with the contract Hillier signed and the Geneva Convention.

Can you cite what part of the Geneva Convention Canadian troops would be violating. As far as I know NATO nation's will handover detainees to the Afghan authorities, so they would have to prosecute most NATO nation's. For some reason I doubt that would go over very well with the UN if that happened. If Afghanistan is party to the Geneva Convention the onus is on them if they have commited violations.

Either way, I'm sure that plenty of lawyers have gone over the detainee handover to ensure Canadian Forces will not be charged at the ICC.

[Catchme]

Oh Canadianblue, that is why O'Connor is being asked to resign, and why Harper has him off flying again to Afghanistan trying to find out what indeed happened to the disappearing Afghans. because apparently we are NOT fulfilling our obligations.

And you see, it is all there in that nice little contract Hillier signed with the Afghan government, and that would be the standards set out in the 3rd Geneva Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, but would the onus not be on the Afghan's.

As I'm sure lawyers have gone over it, and I doubt they get some idiot who know's nothing about international law to go over the document.

I hear people calling for the resignation of somebody everyday, I usually ignore it because it comes from the fringe.

As well I noticed you have only been using "apparently", since I'm sure you don't even know what's going on over there. Either way, I'm tiring of your ideological rhetoric.

[Catchme]

Yes, but would the onus not be on the Afghan's.

As I'm sure lawyers have gone over it, and I doubt they get some idiot who know's nothing about international law to go over the document.

I hear people calling for the resignation of somebody everyday, I usually ignore it because it comes from the fringe.

As well I noticed you have only been using "apparently", since I'm sure you don't even know what's going on over there. Either way, I'm tiring of your ideological rhetoric.

The onus would be upon BOTH parties Canblue.

Canada could break the contract that keeps us propping up Karzi's corrupt government, as the Afghan government may have broken its side of the agreement, if it has tortured and disappeared people, which it appears to have done.

However, the Canadian military, and indeed Canadians, can still be charged with war crimes for breaking the 3rd Geneva Convention, as outlined in Our contract with the Afghan governmentt and further outlined in the the signed contract's citing of the 3rd Geneva Convention.

Individual military personnel's cupability was also quite clearly spelled out in the results of the inquiry after Rwanda, that lead to disbanding an entire regiment, just in case there were some in the military who did not get the 3rd Geneva Convention requirements, that came about as the result of the Holocaust.

We certainly do not need to go over alll of this again, as there are entire threads fillled with it that are only a couple of months old.

You are not sure of anything Canblue, and you never have been ,you made a similar comment on the last page and were gain proven wrong about my knowing. Why do you insist on talk such as this?

Trying to defame the poster as opposed to discussing the topic at hand, really diminishes any authority and validity regarding anything you say, which is unfortunate, as sometimes you do have something worth hearing/reading. I mean after all why should anyone care what you are growing tired of, for example? We could all end our sentences with I grow tired of this or that, as I am sure we all do, but to what end? Waste space? It means absolutely nothing other than illuminating poor debating skills, and an overly emotional personality that is focused upon self.

As such, if you ever use that type of emotional personal commentary about a poster, in debate with me, henceforth, I will disregard any commentary you may have put as being nothing worth responding to.

[Canadian Blue]

I insist upon talk like this because of your ideological blindness, and your seeming hope that Canadian troops will be charged at the Hague.

However, the Canadian military, and indeed Canadians, can still be charged with war crimes for breaking the 3rd Geneva Convention, as outlined in Our contract with the Afghan governmentt and further outlined in the the signed contract's citing of the 3rd Geneva Convention.

Along with how many other nations?

As well if we were to be charged there would more than likely be a massive backlash from all NATO countries.

You are not sure of anything Canblue, and you never have been ,you made a similar comment on the last page and were gain proven wrong about my knowing. Why do you insist on talk such as this?

No, I'm simply here to combat blind ideological ignorance.

Trying to defame the poster as opposed to discussing the topic at hand, really diminishes any authority and validity regarding anything you say, which is unfortunate, as sometimes you do have something worth hearing/reading. I mean after all why should anyone care what you are growing tired of, for example? We could all end our sentences with I grow tired of this or that, as I am sure we all do, but to what end? Waste space? It means absolutely nothing other than illuminating poor debating skills, and an overly emotional personality that is focused upon self.

Making false accusations, which probably are only backed by a massive dislike of Canadian troops and the current government is a much worse standard.

As such, if you ever use that type of emotional personal commentary about a poster, in debate with me, henceforth, I will disregard any commentary you may have put as being nothing worth responding to.

Excuse me, weren't you the one that implied I supported child pornography.

[Topaz]

Oh Canadianblue, that is why O'Connor is being asked to resign, and why Harper has him off flying again to Afghanistan trying to find out what indeed happened to the disappearing Afghans. because apparently we are NOT fulfilling our obligations.

And you see, it is all there in that nice little contract Hillier signed with the Afghan government, and that would be the standards set out in the 3rd Geneva Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

Perhaps this shows how inexperience Harper is as a state men and as the PM. The US should never gone into Iraq and did what they did. The people are not better off now then they were under Hussein. I listen to a US female journalist who was over there living within the people. She said, before ,the women could dress like western women, now they have to cover-up and only allowed to go to the market if there is no a male relative to go with her. The country has been destroyed, toxins and poisons from the bombs dropped. Thousands have been killed, thousand have left their country ! The only ones that come out ahead of this is the US and other countries, who went in there to clean up and put the country back together. The only cleans up is the millions of Iraqis and US taxpayers money went to companies like Hailliburton, Blackwater and Bechtel, just to name a few. Now, don't think this isn't happening in Afghanistan. Millions of dollars have been given to this country and the only thing that shows they have it is the new palaces being built in the capital. The money isn't going to reconstruction or for food, which the people say they want more than a school being built, which ended up with a falling ceiling. I suggest to all Canadians, that we watch when we give money and ask were it is going and make sure it gets there. How can you trust a government in Afghanistan, when there former warlords about his govt. I believe that the Afghans will torture because their presidents father was killed by the Taliban. In closing ,I would feel better if the PM had experience in war himself rather than just watch on the news or in a movie.

[Canadian Blue]

Can you name a PM who has been in an actual war in the past 40 years?

As well, I found your post hard to read.

[Catchme]

This not good enough! He lied to the Members of Parliament, and to Canadians.

O'Connor apologizes for misleading the House on Afghan detainees

OTTAWA — National Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor has apologized to the House of Commons for misleading comments he made on the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian Forces and handed to Afghani authorities.

"I fully and without reservation apologize to the House for providing inaccurate information for members," Mr. O'Connor said in a point of order that kick-started the parliamentary session Monday morning. "I take full responsibility and do so without hesitations."

Mr. O'Connor also tabled letters correcting information the minister and DND officials have provided to the House of Commons. Last year, Mr. O'Connor told MPs that the Red Cross is monitoring the condition of detainees transferred to Afghani authorities.

However, his claims were contradicted by a Red Cross official in a Globe and Mail report two weeks ago. "The International Red Cross Committee is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainess transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities," Mr. O'Connor said.

O'Connor Lies but apologizes for misleading Canadians only! Where is CPC accountability again?

[blueblood]

This not good enough! He lied to the Members of Parliament, and to Canadians.

O'Connor apologizes for misleading the House on Afghan detainees

OTTAWA — National Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor has apologized to the House of Commons for misleading comments he made on the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian Forces and handed to Afghani authorities.

"I fully and without reservation apologize to the House for providing inaccurate information for members," Mr. O'Connor said in a point of order that kick-started the parliamentary session Monday morning. "I take full responsibility and do so without hesitations."

Mr. O'Connor also tabled letters correcting information the minister and DND officials have provided to the House of Commons. Last year, Mr. O'Connor told MPs that the Red Cross is monitoring the condition of detainees transferred to Afghani authorities.

However, his claims were contradicted by a Red Cross official in a Globe and Mail report two weeks ago. "The International Red Cross Committee is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainess transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities," Mr. O'Connor said.

O'Connor Lies but apologizes for misleading Canadians only! Where is CPC accountability again?

At least he owned up to it and it didn't take an RCMP investigation and a high profile inquiry to get to the bottom of it like a certain other canadian political party.

[BC_chick]

Now, don't think this isn't happening in Afghanistan. Millions of dollars have been given to this country and the only thing that shows they have it is the new palaces being built in the capital. The money isn't going to reconstruction or for food, which the people say they want more than a school being built, which ended up with a falling ceiling. I suggest to all Canadians, that we watch when we give money and ask were it is going and make sure it gets there. How can you trust a government in Afghanistan, when there former warlords about his govt. I believe that the Afghans will torture because their presidents father was killed by the Taliban. In closing ,I would feel better if the PM had experience in war himself rather than just watch on the news or in a movie.

2001-2007 should be lesson about the failures of the PNAC ideas regarding the Middle-East. Even if by some miracle all the money goes to Afghanistan and the place is built to reflect a democratic state with human rights that would put us to shame... the terrorists move to another one of the many Islamic nations which allow them to regroup. I believe we are seeing that happening in Somalia, Ehtiopia and Yemen as we speak.

Are we going to take on the task of "liberating" every rundown Islamic country from Nigeria to Indonesia every time these guys regroup? Anyone still holding on to the pipe dream that Afghanistan might amount to something needs to at least admit that even if it does, nothing is done toward combatting terrorism when you look at the big picture which includes the entire Muslim world.

Don't get me wrong, retribution was needed in Afghanistan. But staying on to "rebuild" is an exercise in futility.