Canadian Troops in Iraq?
canadian1971 @ Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:10 pm
IMHO....We should stay the hell outta there. They started the whole mess, let them clean it up.
hormel26c @ Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:30 pm
AdamNF AdamNF:
This is a NATO action, if Canada is to remain in NATO its needs to do what NATO command says. There are 40 officers to train, no to fight. No combat soldiers will be sent.
Well, none of that is true.
Canada is in a treaty in NATO; we don't take orders from the NATO command structure unless it is activated for one of the reasons it exists, and attending a US adventure in Iraq is not one of those reasons. The only other reason Canada would be taking orders from NATO is if we are voluntarily forming a part of a NATO force. If we're not in a particular force, NATO has nothing to say to us on that issue.
There are more than 40 and more than just officers to train. If we send 40 soldiers they will train upwards of 2000 troops. If we can't afford to spare senior NCOs and Warrant Officers to train our own army, how in the hell are we able to spare 40 of the same breed to train some other country's? Iraq had its own army and the US occupation authority disbanded it. This is a US screw up and it is dead wrong for anybody to lead them out of their hubris induced ineptness.
They will be soldiers, and whether anyone likes it or not, they will be combat soldiers. They won't actively patrol and they won't seek out engagements, but I can guarantee, under the present conditions in Iraq, they will end up fighting.
Scape @ Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:46 pm
hormel26c hormel26c:
AdamNF AdamNF:
This is a NATO action, if Canada is to remain in NATO its needs to do what NATO command says. There are 40 officers to train, no to fight. No combat soldiers will be sent.
Well, none of that is true.
Canada is in a treaty in NATO; we don't take orders from the NATO command structure unless it is activated for one of the reasons it exists, and attending a US adventure in Iraq is not one of those reasons. The only other reason Canada would be taking orders from NATO is if we are voluntarily forming a part of a NATO force. If we're not in a particular force, NATO has nothing to say to us on that issue.
There are more than 40 and more than just officers to train. If we send 40 soldiers they will train upwards of 2000 troops. If we can't afford to spare senior NCOs and Warrant Officers to train our own army, how in the hell are we able to spare 40 of the same breed to train some other country's? Iraq had its own army and the US occupation authority disbanded it. This is a US screw up and it is dead wrong for anybody to lead them out of their hubris induced ineptness.
They will be soldiers, and whether anyone likes it or not, they will be combat soldiers. They won't actively patrol and they won't seek out engagements, but I can guarantee, under the present conditions in Iraq, they will end up fighting.
Booyah! Exactly my point. Canada will be in Iraq, it is only a matter of time now and we will be doing in Iraq what we have done in Afghanistan because of the crisis in Iran now. On Fox news today was a lot of interesting banners:
Rice: The International Community has options against Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran's Nuclear Program begun in 1974
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran's Nuclear Program was suspended 1978 - 1979
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran in 1979
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979 - Iranian Militants took 52 Americans Hostage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Broke off Relations with Iran in 1980
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran was added to list of Terror Nations in 1984
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran Supports Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran insists that it has always opposed Al Qaeda
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: Iran Pursues Nuclear Weapons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: Iran is World's Primary State Sponsor of Terror
(while this banner is running the picture shown is a Digital Globe satellite photo of buildings,. Are we to believe that this is where Iran is conducting it's Nuclear Program? Nothing is said about the photo)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice: A U.S. - Led Attack on Iran is 'Not on the Agenda'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran's Guard and Intel Agency Supported Terror Attacks
Tell me the US is not going to attack Iran.
Telkwa @ Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:17 pm
Scape Scape:
Tell me the US is not going to attack Iran.
The US is going to attack Iran. They probably won't be as public about it. They are going to start with air strikes. They will try to keep ground troops to a minimum. But they are going to do it. The Americans want that oil.
putz @ Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:36 am
$1:
The US is going to attack Iran. They probably won't be as public about it. They are going to start with air strikes. They will try to keep ground troops to a minimum. But they are going to do it. The Americans want that oil.
BRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! WHY DO PEOPLE INSIST ITS ALL ABOUT THE OIL!!!!!!!!! Even if that is part of the reason, natural resources and greed have been part of warfare for centuries. The US if they believe Iran has a nuclear capability they won't attack Iran... too much to risk. Plus, they do not have a strong enough case to go to war against Iran, don't think that the failure of Iraq is being taken lightly by the Americans. If they did try to attack Iran, chances are they would be going at it alone, the British, Germans, French and Russians would not partcipate. I also don't think that China would take to lightly it's major supplier of Oil beinf invaded by a "enemy nation". With all thats happening recently I believe that the US is more likely to attack North Korea before Iran (but thats in and of itself is a whole different ball game).
Rev_Blair @ Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:49 am
So France and Germany are sending troops too, Adam? I knd of doubt that. This is no more a NATO action than it is a UN action. It is the fallout from the USA's illegal invasion of a sovereign state.
Telkwa @ Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:17 am
putz putz:
BRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! WHY DO PEOPLE INSIST ITS ALL ABOUT THE OIL!!!!!!!!! Even if that is part of the reason, natural resources and greed have been part of warfare for centuries. The US if they believe Iran has a nuclear capability they won't attack Iran... too much to risk. Plus, they do not have a strong enough case to go to war against Iran, don't think that the failure of Iraq is being taken lightly by the Americans.
The fanatics in the White House are bent on world domination. They are going to attack Iran. Most likely, they will send B52's out of Diego Garcia loaded with Cruise missiles. They can do that without much publicity.
putz @ Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:18 am
$1:
They are going to attack Iran. Most likely, they will send B52's out of Diego Garcia loaded with Cruise missiles. They can do that without much publicity.
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The international outcry from a first strick action (as this would be seen as) would be huge. DO YOU THINK FOR A SECOND that Iran will just sit back and go "yep well let America attack us and just sit back and keep our mouths shut". Iran has already stated and first strick action against them will cause an them to attack Isreal in retaliation. Lets not forget that FOR A FACT Iran does have chemical and biological weapons, and I for one, do not believe that they will hesitate to use them against everyone if they get attacked (even through air strikes). I really think the Iran problem will turn into a stalemate UNLESS Iran makes the first hostile move.
Telkwa @ Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:35 am
putz putz:
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The international outcry from a first strick action (as this would be seen as) would be huge.
Like the international outcry from a first strick action against Iraq? Baloney. The US has just about everybody over a barrel. Sure, there will be protests, but I can't see any European or Asian countries sidine with Iran. The Bushies are fanatics. They are bent on world domination. They are going to attack Iran.
putz @ Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:03 pm
$1:
Like the international outcry from a first strick action against Iraq? Baloney. The US has just about everybody over a barrel. Sure, there will be protests, but I can't see any European or Asian countries sidine with Iran. The Bushies are fanatics. They are bent on world domination. They are going to attack Iran.
Oh thats right I forgot that the US went to war against Iraq by themselves......sorry my bad.
Scape @ Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:17 pm
Iraq is NOT about OIL but about TOLERATING NO DISSENT
Robair @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:50 pm
Dan74 Dan74:
Canadian Peacekeepers are respected all over the world and are much needed in alot of places.With the road already taken by the Bush regime I do believe Canadians are the only ones that could send peacekeepers and beable to function.Not yet mind you but I think it maybe the only way to bring a conclusion to that mess and it should also be only if the U.S is outta there.This will never happen but a guy can dream.
White, mostly christian, Canadian peacekeepers? Infidels are infidels. Doubt that would go over much better than a pregnant pole vault.
If the UN wanted to send in peacekeepers, it's best bet would likely be soilders with a muslim background.
Anyway, I voted no to Cunucks in Iraq.
Lord-Beaverbrook @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:13 pm
Telkwa Telkwa:
Scape Scape:
Tell me the US is not going to attack Iran.
The US is going to attack Iran. They probably won't be as public about it. They are going to start with air strikes. They will try to keep ground troops to a minimum. But they are going to do it. The Americans want that oil.
Deploying their armed forces cost way more than anything they way gain even if they were to take all the oil reserves. Heck, they would have invaded Alberta by now if all they wanted was oil.
ridenrain @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:50 pm
The image of our peacekeepers may be respected all over the world but the reality is we're talking about peacemakers and Canadians just don't have the size or the gear. We can't send them to stand between warring factions, without the ability to fight back, and hope they don't shoot us because we're so nice.
I have the utmost respect for the Canadian forces, those who do the impossible with nothing but I have utter contempt for a government that strips them of nessesary equipment, training, support, kicks them out if they get sick, and then screws up their pensions.
Many of you can rant & rave over the horror of the US military industrial machine but who was flying most of the humanitarian aid to the Tsunami region? The US Carrier group.
The ability to deliver 430,000 pounds of food, supplies and equipment in one day is definately not irrelevent.
U.S. Military Relief Efforts for Tsunami Victims
figfarmer @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:52 pm
better stay off the TTC.