Canuck troops for Iraq?

[Mike F]

"U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to ask Prime Minister Paul Martin to send troops to help with the postwar reconstruction of Iraq when they meet later this month, the Toronto Star reports. No decision has been made, but highly placed sources told the Star that Canada is preparing to discuss the sensitive issue during the NATO summit meeting in Brussels on Feb. 22.

The Prime Minister's Office would not comment last night.

If Ottawa agrees, an estimated 40 Canadians would join a NATO force of about 300 now helping train Iraqi troops in Baghdad, the Star reported."


Link

I'm sure everyone knows my opinion.

[FlamesAddiction]

40 troops to help train Iraqis is not so bad. I'd rather have no Canadians there helping Bush meet his personal agenda, but if we are going to send something this small, I won't worry about it too much.

[peter12]

Captain Crunch can probably confirm this but I believe the Canadian Army has a long history of training developing nations armies. I know we trained Ghana's army.

[CaptainCrunch]

Ghana was a big one, we also sent military police to work on training programs in Haiti. We've also been involved with Afghanastan on setting up training programs for thier basic military.

We also provide international training in Canada for troops from other nato and allied nations.

I don't have much problem with sending these people to Iraq, because the sooner the Iraqi military can be trained, the better they can provide for thier own defense.

Its a NATO obligation, and not a favor to Bush.

[Ozy_Flame]

I support this initiative, simply because it's a NATO operation. Martin is a tool, but he's not that dumb to turn a new leaf overnight and bend over backwards for Dubya.

Anything Canada does in Iraq absolutely MUST have the backing of a credible international organization, such as NATO or the UN.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Ozy_Flame@Feb 5 2005, 11:34 PM
I support this initiative, simply because it's a NATO operation. Martin is a tool, but he's not that dumb to turn a new leaf overnight and bend over backwards for Dubya.

Anything Canada does in Iraq absolutely MUST have the backing of a credible international organization, such as NATO or the UN.

There is nothing credible about the UN. A den of murderers, thieves, and liars would be a better description of the the organization.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Sammie+Feb 6 2005, 07:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Feb 6 2005, 07:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Ozy_Flame@Feb 5 2005, 11:34 PM
I support this initiative, simply because it's a NATO operation. Martin is a tool, but he's not that dumb to turn a new leaf overnight and bend over backwards for Dubya.

Anything Canada does in Iraq absolutely MUST have the backing of a credible international organization, such as NATO or the UN.

There is nothing credible about the UN. A den of murderers, thieves, and liars would be a better description of the the organization. [/b][/quote]
jesus I hate the UN, but even I'm not going to touch that one.

[HOZ]

I'd like to know where exactly they would be getting these troups from? I agree with Harper that the Canadian Military is way too thin to do this job.


I mean really, the Liberals look like Hitler in his bunker. Sending mythical and imaginary divisions out to fight

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Sammie@Feb 6 2005, 07:26 AM
There is nothing credible about the UN. A den of murderers, thieves, and liars would be a better description of the the organization.

I would _love_ to hear some fantastic examples supporting this venemous claim. Please do show me 'murderers, thieves, and liars'.

Otherwise, that was a ball-less smear. 'Nothing credible'? What about UNICEF? Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Peacekeeping in Cyprus? The 16 current Peacekeeping operations they're involved in?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by HOZ@Feb 6 2005, 03:55 PM
I'd like to know where exactly they would be getting these troups from? I agree with Harper that the Canadian Military is way too thin to do this job.


I mean really, the Liberals look like Hitler in his bunker. Sending mythical and imaginary divisions out to fight

If its hard to dig up 40 soldiers to send to Baghdad, then we're in a real pickle. I doubt we'll have problems providing this 'man power'.

The only thing that makes me blink about this is (on the radio, no idea bout credibility) I heard that it was in preparation over the next 2-3 years to cover the w/drawal of US troops. If the US troops leave, and Canadians, Poles, and Belgians are walking the streets of Baghdad w/ their trained Iraqi counterparts... that scenario gives me a bad feeling.

I assume of course Canuck soldiers would be used _strictly_ for training, as there's not much else a platoon could do... cover a city block or two I suppose.

[HOZ]

What about UNICEF?
Private charities that have far less fanfare do far more. I am sure some private group could put together something better

Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
WOW! Sure made China stand up and take notice eh?

Peacekeeping in Cyprus?
You mean the one that Canada pulled out of?

The 16 current Peacekeeping operations they're involved in?
Like the Balkans? How about Rwanda? Did a bang-up job there!!

The UN has done some really good things. No doubt about it. But can you really sit there and say that in the last decade and a bit since the fall of the Soviet Union that it has been anything BUT helpful?

64 billion dollars: single most largest relief effort was an exercise in outright graf

Bloodbaths which they sat on the sideline:
Rwanda
Iraq
Balkans
Sudan


Yes you said it in the other thread. The UN runs according to it's members. And that is why it is broken. Too many tinpot dictators, Communist controlled countries and an unaccountable bureaucracy too willing to fill their pockets at the expense of the downtroddenthey are suppose to help.

Can you name ANY country that the UN has helped bring to it's feet?

[Agamemnon]

What about UNICEF?
Private charities that have far less fanfare do far more. I am sure some private group could put together something better

That may be true... but they wouldn't. If UNICEF dissolved tomorrow, you think the gap would be filled overnight by 'some private group'? You're sure they could put something better together? I'm not sure of many charitable organizations that are the size and scope of UNICEF, could you list a few?

http://www.unicef.org/

Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
WOW! Sure made China stand up and take notice eh?

Right, good call, this negates any value or reason for the Declaration of Human Rights. It made quite a few people stand up and take notice at the time, and went a long way towards establishing an 'equal rights' mindset among humanity and assisting in eradicating long-standing and rife racism.

I don't think China avoiding a few articles and clauses makes the Declaration of Human Rights not 'credible'. Many, many Western governments would dispute a claim that it isn't.

Peacekeeping in Cyprus?
You mean the one that Canada pulled out of?

... so what? Canada pulling out means the mission failed or is not 'credible'? This doesn't make sense. If this is what you're saying, then you're absolutely wrong. If every mission Canada left was deemed a failure because of that... that would be stupid.

The 16 current Peacekeeping operations they're involved in?
Like the Balkans? How about Rwanda? Did a bang-up job there!!

Riiiight, I forgot the Balkans was _all_ the UN's fault. Clinton and NATO had nothing to do with it. Why not blame the Security Council nations at the time? Because you don't care to... its much easier to encapsulate your vague irritation at lack of action by blaming an acronym then bothering to figure out what the real case was. I'm chairing a conference on the Balkans crisis next month... I assume you've extensively researched your erroneous claims?

The UN has done some really good things. No doubt about it. But can you really sit there and say that in the last decade and a bit since the fall of the Soviet Union that it has been anything BUT helpful?

I sure can. In fact, they've done so many helpful things, I couldn't list some here without doing injustice to others. Check out www.un.org for a comprehensive list of the things they do. I find it far outweighs its criticisms. Hell, don't take the UN's word for it, ask the US or Canadian government... or most governments in the world! They've all got embassy websites for the UN, where they praise it to no end. Check out http://www.un.int/usa/ or http://www.un.int/canada/english.html for all kinds of positive ways the US, Canada, and the UN work together on a _daily_ basis.

Apparently some people think that all the UN does is intervene in security issues. This is probably one of the smallest and weakest contributions the UN provides. Economic, Social, Political, and Cultural programs run the gamut, from rich to poor, black to white, all over the world, dwarfing most other international care agencies. The UN coordinates _immense_ relief efforts, like the recent Tsunami.

64 billion dollars: single most largest relief effort was an exercise in outright graf

I assume you know that nowhere close to 64 billion dollars was taken? This sentence appears to spin this figure as the # stolen, whereas its the total size of the Oil for Food program.

Can you name ANY country that the UN has helped bring to it's feet?

It's helping dozens of countries today. It usually goes into fairly 'broken' states, so to expect some sort of turnaround success story out of misery is probably aiming miles too high. The # of things being done today is, again, beyond measure by myself. http://www.un.org/esa/

All this 'UN sucks' talk is throwing out the baby-with-the-bathwater BS. If you see room for reform, point it out. Clearly the world _wants_ to be members of the UN, so I don't see how you're more knowledgeable about what they want than they are.

Maybe write a letter?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 6 2005, 10:07 AM

All this 'UN sucks' talk is throwing out the baby-with-the-bathwater BS. If you see room for reform, point it out. Clearly the world _wants_ to be members of the UN, so I don't see how you're more knowledgeable about what they want than they are.

I'm not wading into the debate, but I am curious...

Does this argument also hold for the IMF, the WTO, or the supra-national organizations the left doesn't support?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois+Feb 6 2005, 05:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bend it like Bourgeois @ Feb 6 2005, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Feb 6 2005, 10:07 AM

All this 'UN sucks' talk is throwing out the baby-with-the-bathwater BS. If you see room for reform, point it out. Clearly the world _wants_ to be members of the UN, so I don't see how you're more knowledgeable about what they want than they are.

I'm not wading into the debate, but I am curious...

Does this argument also hold for the IMF, the WTO, or the supra-national organizations the left doesn't support? [/b][/quote]
The argument, 'If you see room for reform, point it out.'? It sure does apply to every supra-national organization, regardless of subjective point of view upon it. If an agency is doing something innefficiently, illegally, or to the detriment of large swathes of the population, then it should be reformed.

These global institutions are here to stay. The best way to cope with them is to continue modifying and reforming them according to need and ability.

[Looger]

i know it'd just be a different face on the same animal but boy, would i ever feel better aboot this if brussels asks us for the troops and not washington.