- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Canada will go to Iraq, IF/WHEN the Un goes into Iraq
Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
mazda,
It must be nice to live in such a simple/black&white world. But pull your head out at think about this for a moment:
You could very easily argue that Iraq was not an urgent target in the war on terror (you could even argue it was irrelevant next to other threats). However, whether or not you agree with the invasion of Iraq (or its relevance, under Sadam, to the war on terror), Iraq has become iconic on both sides of the struggle.
No. Canadian troops would not go to Iraq to fight the poor local Iraqi civilians trying to go about their lives. Canadian troops could participate in the fight against armed insurgents (both Iraqi and foreign that travelled to Iraq to participate in a "holly war") that destabilize the region and provide challenges to the Iraqi people trying to rebuild their nation. To put it simply: military force is still required in Iraq because there are people ready to employ force to re-establish the nation as an oppressive anti-western state.
"Peacekeeping" missions are not required in Iraq. Security, Counter-insurgency, and provincial-reconstruction missions are required in Iraq.
It must be nice to live in such a simple/black&white world. But pull your head out at think about this for a moment:
You could very easily argue that Iraq was not an urgent target in the war on terror (you could even argue it was irrelevant next to other threats). However, whether or not you agree with the invasion of Iraq (or its relevance, under Sadam, to the war on terror), Iraq has become iconic on both sides of the struggle.
No. Canadian troops would not go to Iraq to fight the poor local Iraqi civilians trying to go about their lives. Canadian troops could participate in the fight against armed insurgents (both Iraqi and foreign that travelled to Iraq to participate in a "holly war") that destabilize the region and provide challenges to the Iraqi people trying to rebuild their nation. To put it simply: military force is still required in Iraq because there are people ready to employ force to re-establish the nation as an oppressive anti-western state.
"Peacekeeping" missions are not required in Iraq. Security, Counter-insurgency, and provincial-reconstruction missions are required in Iraq.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Why would we go to Iraq? What would our Government hope to accomplish by sending troops? Would they send a contingent in as part of the Coallition forces to prosecute WWIV, of under UN sponsorship to accomplish whatever dubious goals the UN wishes to achieve? (Think Oil for Food).
Many posters have rightly pointed out the true limiting factor is domestic politics. No one cares enough about the people of Sudan to force the Government to dispatch a battlegroup to Dafur,for example, and most Canadians are so negative about the American goals in WWIV they would not support the coallition in Iraq or wherever else they might have to go. (As an aside, the Sudan was once the home base for Al Qadea, and it is possible there are still elements there. If American or coallition forces enter Sudan to hunt down residual terrorist elements, where does that leave us?)
Many posters have rightly pointed out the true limiting factor is domestic politics. No one cares enough about the people of Sudan to force the Government to dispatch a battlegroup to Dafur,for example, and most Canadians are so negative about the American goals in WWIV they would not support the coallition in Iraq or wherever else they might have to go. (As an aside, the Sudan was once the home base for Al Qadea, and it is possible there are still elements there. If American or coallition forces enter Sudan to hunt down residual terrorist elements, where does that leave us?)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
jmackenzie_15 said:
hear, hear....but that would require courage.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
You can wage war on terror
from National Review, February 1st 2004
by Mark Styen
Among the instant cliches that sprang up after 9/11 was the notion that a "war on terror" is a meaningless concept. "It is misleading to talk of a 'war on terrorism', let alone a 'war on global terrorism'," sniffed the distinguished British historian Corelli Barnett in December.
"'Terrorism' is a phenomenon, just as is war in the conventional sense. But you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy." Most of us warmongers were inclined, if only in private, to agree with Mr Barnett. We assumed "war on terror" was a polite evasion, the compassionate conservative's preferred euphemism for what was really going on - a war against militant Islam, which, had you designated it as such, would have been harder to square with all those White House Ramadan photo-ops.
But here's the interesting thing. Pace the historian, it seems you can wage war against a phenomenon. If the "war on terror" is aimed primarily at al-Qaeda and those of similar ideological bent, it seems to have had the happy side-benefit of discombobulating various non-Islamic terrorists from Colombia to Sri Lanka. This isn't because these fellows are the administration's priority right now, but rather because it's amazing what a little light scrutiny of international wire transfers can do.
Pre-9/11, almost every country was openly indifferent to terrorism's global support network. In my own native land, Canada, financial contributions to terrorist groups were tax deductible.Seriously. As part of the repulsive ethnic ward-heeling of the multiculti state, Liberal Party cabinet ministers attended fundraisers for the Tamil Tigers, the terrorist group that's plagued Sri Lanka for two decades. These guys are state-of-the-art terrorists: as the old song says, they were self-detonating before self-detonating was cool. Two decades back, they used a female suicide bomber to kill Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister, and, until the intifada, they were the market leader in "martyrdom operations". It's somehow sadly symbolic of the general bankruptcy of Palestinian "nationalism" that even its signature depravity should be second-hand.
But in an odd way Canada's indulgence of Sri Lankan terrorism became part of its defence against American accusations that the Great White North wasn't doing its bit in the new war. If you pointed out the huge sums of money raised in Canada for terrorism, Ottawa politicians would roll their eyes and patiently explain, ah yes, but most of that's for the Tamils or some such; nothing to do with Osama, nothing Washington needs to get its knickers in a twist about. As if destabilising our Commonwealth cousins in the Indian ocean had mysteriously become an urgent Canadian policy objective.
They were doing what most of the rest of us were doing - buying into the conventional wisdom that the "war on terror" was the war that dare not speak its name. But, funnily enough, intentionally or not, the Tamil Tigers wound up getting caught in the net. Their long campaign reached its apogee in a spectacular bloodbath at Sri Lanka's principal airport just over two years ago, a couple of months before 9/11, back when nobody was paying attention. By February of last year, they'd given up plans for an independent Tamil state and their chief negotiator in London was suing for peace on the basis of some sort of regional autonomy. It's an uneasy truce but tourists are returning to the island and the Tamil stronghold of Jaffna is being touted as "the new Phuket" (the Thai resort beloved of vacationing Brits).
You can find other examples of long-running local conflicts around the world from Burundi to Nepal that seem to have mysteriously wound down over the last two years. Might be just coincidence, as the media's bien pensants assure us is the case with Col Gadafy's about-face: nothing to do with Bush and his absurd war, old boy, don't you believe it. Or it might be that putting the bank transfers of certain groups on an international watch list has choked off the funding pump for a lot of terrorism. Even nickel'n'dime terrorists need nickels and dimes, and in your average war-torn basket-case state that usually means fundraising overseas.
Corelli Barnett was wrong when he wrote that "you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy." For most of the last half-century, the activist left opposed not a specific enemy but a phenomenon - nuclear weapons.Indeed, insofar as they wished our side to lead by example, they were more concerned by Anglo-American manifestations of the phenomenon rather than the specific enemy's. In those days, only the US, UK, France, China and the Soviet Union had nukes and the left was convinced Armageddon was just around the corner: fear of the phenomenon sold a gazillion posters, plays, books, films and LPs with big scary mushroom clouds on the cover. Now that nukes are no longer the preserve of an elite club of five relatively sane world powers but can be acquired by any ramshackle dictatorship or freelance nut group, the left is positively blasé on the subject.
But in their less decayed Cold War state the left was right to this extent: sometimes the phenomenon is the enemy. Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang trained in Saddam's Iraq. The IRA has ties to Gadafy and to Colombian drug terrorists. Even the old line that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" doesn't quite cover these alliances: Saddam was pally with the Germans, and Gerry Adams and co have enough friends in high places in Washington who wouldn't take kindly to the IRA's Hispanic outreach. What drew these people together is the phenomenon: the mutual lack of squeamishness about blowing the legs off grannies in pizza houses. In that sense, they've more in common with the international piracy and slavery networks of two centuries ago.
President Bush implied as much in London a few weeks back, in his tip of the hat to the Royal Navy for stamping out the slave trade. As usual, the so-called idiot figured it out quicker than the smart guys: in the days after September 11th, he was shrewd enough to identify the real enemy and declare war on it. Two years on, in all kinds of tiny corners of the globe you never hear about on CNN, the bad guys are feeling the heat.
from National Review, February 1st 2004
by Mark Styen
Among the instant cliches that sprang up after 9/11 was the notion that a "war on terror" is a meaningless concept. "It is misleading to talk of a 'war on terrorism', let alone a 'war on global terrorism'," sniffed the distinguished British historian Corelli Barnett in December.
"'Terrorism' is a phenomenon, just as is war in the conventional sense. But you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy." Most of us warmongers were inclined, if only in private, to agree with Mr Barnett. We assumed "war on terror" was a polite evasion, the compassionate conservative's preferred euphemism for what was really going on - a war against militant Islam, which, had you designated it as such, would have been harder to square with all those White House Ramadan photo-ops.
But here's the interesting thing. Pace the historian, it seems you can wage war against a phenomenon. If the "war on terror" is aimed primarily at al-Qaeda and those of similar ideological bent, it seems to have had the happy side-benefit of discombobulating various non-Islamic terrorists from Colombia to Sri Lanka. This isn't because these fellows are the administration's priority right now, but rather because it's amazing what a little light scrutiny of international wire transfers can do.
Pre-9/11, almost every country was openly indifferent to terrorism's global support network. In my own native land, Canada, financial contributions to terrorist groups were tax deductible.Seriously. As part of the repulsive ethnic ward-heeling of the multiculti state, Liberal Party cabinet ministers attended fundraisers for the Tamil Tigers, the terrorist group that's plagued Sri Lanka for two decades. These guys are state-of-the-art terrorists: as the old song says, they were self-detonating before self-detonating was cool. Two decades back, they used a female suicide bomber to kill Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister, and, until the intifada, they were the market leader in "martyrdom operations". It's somehow sadly symbolic of the general bankruptcy of Palestinian "nationalism" that even its signature depravity should be second-hand.
But in an odd way Canada's indulgence of Sri Lankan terrorism became part of its defence against American accusations that the Great White North wasn't doing its bit in the new war. If you pointed out the huge sums of money raised in Canada for terrorism, Ottawa politicians would roll their eyes and patiently explain, ah yes, but most of that's for the Tamils or some such; nothing to do with Osama, nothing Washington needs to get its knickers in a twist about. As if destabilising our Commonwealth cousins in the Indian ocean had mysteriously become an urgent Canadian policy objective.
They were doing what most of the rest of us were doing - buying into the conventional wisdom that the "war on terror" was the war that dare not speak its name. But, funnily enough, intentionally or not, the Tamil Tigers wound up getting caught in the net. Their long campaign reached its apogee in a spectacular bloodbath at Sri Lanka's principal airport just over two years ago, a couple of months before 9/11, back when nobody was paying attention. By February of last year, they'd given up plans for an independent Tamil state and their chief negotiator in London was suing for peace on the basis of some sort of regional autonomy. It's an uneasy truce but tourists are returning to the island and the Tamil stronghold of Jaffna is being touted as "the new Phuket" (the Thai resort beloved of vacationing Brits).
You can find other examples of long-running local conflicts around the world from Burundi to Nepal that seem to have mysteriously wound down over the last two years. Might be just coincidence, as the media's bien pensants assure us is the case with Col Gadafy's about-face: nothing to do with Bush and his absurd war, old boy, don't you believe it. Or it might be that putting the bank transfers of certain groups on an international watch list has choked off the funding pump for a lot of terrorism. Even nickel'n'dime terrorists need nickels and dimes, and in your average war-torn basket-case state that usually means fundraising overseas.
Corelli Barnett was wrong when he wrote that "you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy." For most of the last half-century, the activist left opposed not a specific enemy but a phenomenon - nuclear weapons.Indeed, insofar as they wished our side to lead by example, they were more concerned by Anglo-American manifestations of the phenomenon rather than the specific enemy's. In those days, only the US, UK, France, China and the Soviet Union had nukes and the left was convinced Armageddon was just around the corner: fear of the phenomenon sold a gazillion posters, plays, books, films and LPs with big scary mushroom clouds on the cover. Now that nukes are no longer the preserve of an elite club of five relatively sane world powers but can be acquired by any ramshackle dictatorship or freelance nut group, the left is positively blasé on the subject.
But in their less decayed Cold War state the left was right to this extent: sometimes the phenomenon is the enemy. Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang trained in Saddam's Iraq. The IRA has ties to Gadafy and to Colombian drug terrorists. Even the old line that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" doesn't quite cover these alliances: Saddam was pally with the Germans, and Gerry Adams and co have enough friends in high places in Washington who wouldn't take kindly to the IRA's Hispanic outreach. What drew these people together is the phenomenon: the mutual lack of squeamishness about blowing the legs off grannies in pizza houses. In that sense, they've more in common with the international piracy and slavery networks of two centuries ago.
President Bush implied as much in London a few weeks back, in his tip of the hat to the Royal Navy for stamping out the slave trade. As usual, the so-called idiot figured it out quicker than the smart guys: in the days after September 11th, he was shrewd enough to identify the real enemy and declare war on it. Two years on, in all kinds of tiny corners of the globe you never hear about on CNN, the bad guys are feeling the heat.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Canuck troops to Iraq?
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Paul Martin opened the door yesterday to deploying Canadian soldiers to Iraq once he follows through on a promise to boost military ranks. The PM said the Canadian Forces are too stretched at the moment to contribute to a new mission.
But when pressed during an interview on CNN's Late Edition on whether Canada could deploy to Iraq once it bulks up the military, Martin responded: "That's going to depend on where we're asked to go."
And when asked whether Canada is outright against contributing a military force in Iraq, Martin answered that Canada simply doesn't have the soldiers to staff a mission.
"Our commitments are such that it would be very hard for us to commit troops into Iraq," the PM said.
Martin said Canada is stretched too thin to even contribute 1,000 troops to provide security during the upcoming Iraqi election.
Martin said that, for Canada, the military commitment in Afghanistan would always trump a decision to answer the call for more troops in Iraq.
The number of Canadian soldiers patrolling Kabul were reduced from a high of 2,000 to 900 this year to give the exhausted army an 18-month break from deployments.
The PM said he'll boost those numbers this year and OK a reconstruction team made up of soldiers and civilians that will be sent into Afghanistan's badlands to rebuild war-torn towns.
Martin promised during the throne speech to boost the military's ranks by 5,000 full-time soldiers and 3,000 reservists, but hasn't set a timeline.
Martin downplayed Canada's opposition to the invasion of Iraq and expressed an eagerness to see Canadians helping out in next month's election.
Mon, December 6, 2004
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Paul Martin opened the door yesterday to deploying Canadian soldiers to Iraq once he follows through on a promise to boost military ranks. The PM said the Canadian Forces are too stretched at the moment to contribute to a new mission.
But when pressed during an interview on CNN's Late Edition on whether Canada could deploy to Iraq once it bulks up the military, Martin responded: "That's going to depend on where we're asked to go."
And when asked whether Canada is outright against contributing a military force in Iraq, Martin answered that Canada simply doesn't have the soldiers to staff a mission.
"Our commitments are such that it would be very hard for us to commit troops into Iraq," the PM said.
Martin said Canada is stretched too thin to even contribute 1,000 troops to provide security during the upcoming Iraqi election.
Martin said that, for Canada, the military commitment in Afghanistan would always trump a decision to answer the call for more troops in Iraq.
The number of Canadian soldiers patrolling Kabul were reduced from a high of 2,000 to 900 this year to give the exhausted army an 18-month break from deployments.
The PM said he'll boost those numbers this year and OK a reconstruction team made up of soldiers and civilians that will be sent into Afghanistan's badlands to rebuild war-torn towns.
Martin promised during the throne speech to boost the military's ranks by 5,000 full-time soldiers and 3,000 reservists, but hasn't set a timeline.
Martin downplayed Canada's opposition to the invasion of Iraq and expressed an eagerness to see Canadians helping out in next month's election.
Mon, December 6, 2004
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Howdy boys and girls:
I just wanted to say thanks for all of your help, and the interesting debates that have arisen as a result.
To date, my paper is 75% in completion, and will be submitted tomorrow morning. I was told to work within a 3,500 word frame, but I went in to speak with my prof, and she has agreed to let me explore the topic in full, regardless of the word count and will grade me accordingly, as I have demonstrated that I feel awkward representing a small slice of the pie. I have realized that a topic as such cannot be explored in 3,500 words, or even 7,000 words...it's just too complex...
I will post it on the forum in the next few days or so, as soon as I get final exams all sorted out.
Thanks again,
Lindsay
I just wanted to say thanks for all of your help, and the interesting debates that have arisen as a result.
To date, my paper is 75% in completion, and will be submitted tomorrow morning. I was told to work within a 3,500 word frame, but I went in to speak with my prof, and she has agreed to let me explore the topic in full, regardless of the word count and will grade me accordingly, as I have demonstrated that I feel awkward representing a small slice of the pie. I have realized that a topic as such cannot be explored in 3,500 words, or even 7,000 words...it's just too complex...
I will post it on the forum in the next few days or so, as soon as I get final exams all sorted out.
Thanks again,
Lindsay
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I wouldn't put it past Martin to do that, but if Martin wants to win the next election he knows that he'll either have to do what the majority of Canadians wants:
or continue to play a Tony-Blair poodle to Bush's imperial adventures in Iraq, which may have already killed 100,000 people unnecessarily. www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/29/62614/814
And many coalition troops: http://icasualties.org/oif/
Always remember if someone tell you that they really had to "Oust an awful dictator," just remember that Saddam Hussein is their guy : http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm
as were many other brutal dictators: http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm
I still laugh at people like Paul Martin who think that playing U.S. lap-dog gets them respect on the world stage. People respect those that stand up to them--not those who are cowards.
or continue to play a Tony-Blair poodle to Bush's imperial adventures in Iraq, which may have already killed 100,000 people unnecessarily. www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/29/62614/814
And many coalition troops: http://icasualties.org/oif/
Always remember if someone tell you that they really had to "Oust an awful dictator," just remember that Saddam Hussein is their guy : http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm
as were many other brutal dictators: http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm
I still laugh at people like Paul Martin who think that playing U.S. lap-dog gets them respect on the world stage. People respect those that stand up to them--not those who are cowards.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Disillusioned said:
I forgot my links about what Canadians want:
www.canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=coc_token&id=1041&isdoc=1&catid=359
www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d0217js.htm
Here's a cached google link discussing how Canadians' desire to become more independent from the U.S. goes much farther......including restricting energy exports......
www.google.ca/search?q=cache:KRIDKSX_7_QJ:www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2004/March31-canada-us.pdf+ipsos+reid&hl=en
M
McMan
Guest
k I read similar news reports, almost identical actually, but mine were in reference to Canadian contribution to the elections in Iraq, not a military contribution. They would oversee and aid in the first elections and play a role that way because really...there's no way they'll end up pulling a 180 and placing troops in Iraq anytime soon.
D
dutchie
Guest
There is no way that Paul Martin will send troops to Iraq until it becomes (IF it becomes) a UN mission. Stephen Harper might, but there is no way PM Martin will. I see his response to Wolf Blitzer's clarifying question regarding "when you bring troop levels up, will you send them to Iraq?' as a bit of a Martin 'Waffle'. He is not going to tell the US public on CNN that he will not commit troops to Iraq even with increased numbers. The PM is trying to mend bridges, not burn them. So he says, 'Well, we'll have to see where were asked to go'....he didn't say, "No frickin' way Wolfie, you guys are crazy!' as the US would lose it, and he didn't say 'Just as soon as we have the manpower, we'll be there." as the Canadian public would lose it. So he made a smart political decision - he didn't commit either way.
I'll eat my hat if a significant contingent of Canadian troops join the US and Britain in Iraq....unless the Tories get it, then all bets are off.
I'll eat my hat if a significant contingent of Canadian troops join the US and Britain in Iraq....unless the Tories get it, then all bets are off.
D
dutchie
Guest
Look at how many suicides take place across north america every year.
Regarding the 'suicide' thing, I just had to put my 2 cents in.....
You really can't compare North American teenage angst over pimples, pubic hair, broken hearts, or bad grades causing (temporary, in most cases) suicidal thoughts to the motivators behind Islamic suicide bombers. One is literally child's play, the other is deadly serious and is much more complex with religious, cultural, and political implications and stressors involved.
In short, I don't think that a Palestinian kid depressed over normal teenage life would cause him to strap dynamite to his chest and blow up a bus. In fact, if he acts like most other kids who are depressed, he'd be so apathetic you couldn't motivate him to clean his room.
Just my Humble Opinion.
Regarding the 'suicide' thing, I just had to put my 2 cents in.....
You really can't compare North American teenage angst over pimples, pubic hair, broken hearts, or bad grades causing (temporary, in most cases) suicidal thoughts to the motivators behind Islamic suicide bombers. One is literally child's play, the other is deadly serious and is much more complex with religious, cultural, and political implications and stressors involved.
In short, I don't think that a Palestinian kid depressed over normal teenage life would cause him to strap dynamite to his chest and blow up a bus. In fact, if he acts like most other kids who are depressed, he'd be so apathetic you couldn't motivate him to clean his room.
Just my Humble Opinion.
Similar threads
