Canadian Troops Going To Iraq?

[Biggie]

Though there is nothing official yet, if France and Germany agree, Canada will also. I would agree with this decision. Canada should be doing everything it can to help out the new government with stabilizing Iraq.

 

OTTAWA -- 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.

 

Their mandate is to stabilize Iraq and help it prepare for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

 

According to the sources, Canada's new openness to contributing troops is due to changing circumstances. They cite Sunday's surprisingly successful elections in Iraq and the urgent need to bring peace to the region as important considerations.

 

But the Martin government's reluctance to pay the domestic political price of joining the U.S. continental missile defence program is also said to be a factor shaping federal thinking: to show it is willing to co-operate on other fronts

[ecnarf]

Though there is nothing official yet, if France and Germany agree, Canada will also. I would agree with this decision. Canada should be doing everything it can to help out the new government with stabilizing Iraq.

On what do you base the idea that if France and Germany are doing it, Canada will too?

 

I'm not sure if you live in Canada or the U.S., but you've got you realize that since Canada didn't go along with the U.S. in the first place, and a considerable majority of the population agreed, we're not likely to go along with France and Germany into the war. We made our own decision in the first place, and I'm confident Martin, who seems to have an excellent sense of how to not ruin his name in politics, is going to stay out.

[Dan #2]

Well, i wouldn't be surprised. It is costumary that we clean up, or help clean up, american messes. I am against the occupation of Iraq, but we might as well go in, and get things running.

[Biggie]

Though there is nothing official yet, if France and Germany agree, Canada will also.  I would agree with this decision.  Canada should be doing everything it can to help out the new government with stabilizing Iraq.

On what do you base the idea that if France and Germany are doing it, Canada will too?

 

I'm not sure if you live in Canada or the U.S., but you've got you realize that since Canada didn't go along with the U.S. in the first place, and a considerable majority of the population agreed, we're not likely to go along with France and Germany into the war. We made our own decision in the first place, and I'm confident Martin, who seems to have an excellent sense of how to not ruin his name in politics, is going to stay out.

I base it on the idea that if NATO sends a force, Canada will be a part of it. If that's what France/Germany want, Canada will go with it. Also, Canada and France have histories of military action together. Haiti, Yugoslavia, Africa... In many ways, Canada sticks with France more than the US.

 

The situation is now totally different than March 2003. Canadians were against the war. Well, the war happened and is over, and now there's a real government in Iraq which needs Canada's help.

 

Well, i wouldn't be surprised. It is costumary that we clean up, or help clean up, american messes. I am against the occupation of Iraq, but we might as well go in, and get things running.

 

Please elaborate. When has Canada had to clean up "American messes?"

[Sparq]

If the States wants us to help with this, they should at least be helping to pay for it. Our armed forces are nearly bankrupt as it is, and are already one of the most overused military forces in the world...we've got people getting back from a long tour only to be deployed again two months later. I'm not against it in principal, it just seems like a very bad decision as far as the health of the CF goes.

Edited February 5, 2005 by Sparq

[ecnarf]

Buddy, if Canadians were against the war in the first place, we're not about to run to the U.S.'s aid now. We've seen how the war went downhill, how the U.S. gov't and media has mistreated us since then. Remember that only about 20% of Canadians would have voted for George Bush in the last election if they could.

 

Besides that, just because Canada and France have a history of acting together doesn't mean much. The largest pressure we faced about the war was from the United States to join, and it's the same deal right now with missile defence. Don't think we're incapable of making our own decision. Also keep in mind that majority of Canadians only would have supported Canada joining the war in Iraq was if the U.N. had approved of it - not quite making our own decision, I'll admit, but seeing as George Bush is about as unpopular as Brian Mulroney, there won't be much public support for sending Canadian troops to Iraq, even if it is for the sake of helping out the Iraqi government. If the United States made this mess, why should the rest of the world clean up?

[Biggie]

It's a humanitarian issue, not "running to the U.S.'s aid." Trust me, they don't need us, but it would be nice if we helped. Put aside the your dislike of Bush for just a second and look at the situation on the ground in Iraq. Anything we can do to help keep the new democratically elected government stable is needed. Peace is obtainable, and I think a NATO force would be able to contribute immensely (look at past experiences in the Balkans and Afghanistan).

 

Sparq: Yes, Canada's armed forces are underfunded and overstretched, but that's Martin's own doing. You'd think with a $9 B surplus, we could reinvest in certain areas formerly cut.

[jhark]

This is a tough subject

 

I think if canada went to help stabilize iraq with the main goal being the withdrawl of the US i would agree with the decision. Its important that iraq stands on their own as soon as possible.

 

Also if other countries joining the US in iraq would make the americans act with more humanity towards iraqi prisoners and help viloence between the opposing groups to decrease i would be very supportive of canadian troops going over.

 

I dont beleive the reason we'd go over is because of pressure from other countries but simply out of the possiblitly we could make things better for the iraqi people then if it was just left to US.

 

After all if we are unhappy with the americans actions we should try to step in and make sure everything is fair. True the states has made things messy in iraq but simply stating its their fault let them deal with it is kinda negative. These are peoples lives.

 

But is it naive of me to think that canadian troops can influence the americans? Or would we go over and just follow their lead? If this is the case canada should have no part in it.

[ecnarf]

It's a humanitarian issue, not "running to the U.S.'s aid." Trust me, they don't need us, but it would be nice if we helped. Put aside the your dislike of Bush for just a second and look at the situation on the ground in Iraq. Anything we can do to help keep the new democratically elected government stable is needed. Peace is obtainable, and I think a NATO force would be able to contribute immensely (look at past experiences in the Balkans and Afghanistan).

 

Sparq: Yes, Canada's armed forces are underfunded and overstretched, but that's Martin's own doing. You'd think with a $9 B surplus, we could reinvest in certain areas formerly cut.

The military's been ignored for way too long now, there needs to be a serious project put in order to make it sustainable.

 

I do realize that it's a humanitarian issue needed to keep security in Iraq, but it was created out of a false war. And Bush going around trying to mend alliances, asking for help in the war on terror is his way of admitting that they screwed up and need help. It's not my intent to screw over the Iraqi people just to spite the states, really, it's a tricky issue.

 

Also, why is it that if the U.S. doesn't need us, why is any help we can give needed?

[Biggie]

In the big picture, the job can be done without Canadians, but they can still make a difference. If 40 Canadian troops are in Baghdad, maybe they can stop a car bombing or shootings of civilians, or something.

 

I didn't have to donate $50 to the tsunami relief, since there was billions of dollars going that way. But I did.

[Matt]

"I like the pottery barn rule "you break it, you fix it"" - John Kerry. The U.S. created an awful mess, but why should we put troops at risk over this? It's Military policy not to send troops into situations like that because one casualty is considered too many. The Troops have families too, and they deserve to know they are not being sent into a situation like that.

[jhark]

ya i completely understand where matts coming from thats why its really hard to decide (at least for me) on one hand you have iraqi suffering that maybe we could help... but if my brother was in the canadian military i wouldnt want him to go

[Biggie]

C'mon. We've sent the military to far worse. If one casualty is too many, then we're a nation of pussies.

 

I feel bad for families of soldiers, but it's a volunteer army.

[Matt]

That's just ridiculous, that's called being smart. One casualty is quite frankly too many. People have the right to know that when they're asked to go into combat to know that government has not sent them into a horrible situation.

[Munk]

If one casualty is too many, then we're a nation of pussies.

I wish we were a bunch of pussies then.

[Biggie]

Canadians used to be proud to send troops and assist in troubled regions. And you'd think a NATO operation would satisfy the people who claimed the initial invasion wasn't multilateral. It sure satisfied them in Kosovo.

[Munk]

I've got no problem cleaning up messes. But right now, I'm sure a white Canadian would be as welcomed by the Iraqis as a white American woul be. We didn't help them fend of the US horde like they wanted, and we expect them to smile as we try and keep peace?

[Matt]

We are proud to send troops, but not when we're sending them into violent situations like how Iraq is currently. Especially since Iraq wouldn't be this hostile right now if not for the actions of the U.S. government.

Edited February 5, 2005 by Matt

[Biggie]

Since the 90s, Canada sent troops to the Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and more. They were all dangerous missions. I don't understand why you don't want the military going to dangerous places.

 

Hell, Canadians fought in real battles in Croatia. See: Medak Pocket.

[Munk]

I don't want Canada to have a military period. A peace keeping force is fine, but once the war is over.

[Biggie]

I don't want Canada to have a military period. A peace keeping force is fine, but once the war is over.

I presume this peacekeeping force would only go where the UN says to?

 

What if Canada wanted to send a peacekeeping force to Darfur? China and Russia would veto any proposal in the UN Security Council. Our foreign policy would be at the mercy of 5 countries.

 

Canada needs a strong, capable armed force which can act with or without the UN to do what's best for humanity. Certainly, UN sanctioned acts of force have a greater amount of legitimacy to many, but the UN has failed in places, too. Kosovo was a NATO action because nothing got done in the UN.

[Munk]

I'm sure the US has the same opinion, and look how well they're doing.

[Biggie]

I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Canada should let Beijing control our foreign policy?

[Munk]

I think our foreign policy should be dependant on a world council, yes.

[Biggie]

So, how would you reform the UN?