Iraq: Harper, Harper, Pants On Fire

Posted on Friday, June 04 at 12:56 by KevinGagnon

The Chrétien government's decision not to enter the Iraq war is a defining moment in Canada's foreign-policy history. It is now supported, according to a recent CBC poll, by a staggering 79 per cent of the population.

The record shows that Mr. Harper and his Conservatives wanted to enter that war. But, fearing that it would cost him badly at the polls, Mr. Harper is now trying to squirm his way out of it, saying he only wanted increased moral support for the conflict, not military support. The new line -- offered while crying "Dalton" at the Liberals for their tax-pledge reversal in the Ontario budget -- doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

full article:

[Moderators note: Several people sent this one in. I only picked this one as Kevin had already formatted it. -Dr Caleb]



Note: full article:

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
    The Canadian Forces should have participated in ousting Saddam, if not for our own sake, then for the sake of the Iraqi people. Canadian hypocrites congratulate themselves on peacekeeping yet peacekeeping has been a total failure, no ethnic or other group has stopped slaughtering each others people just because we asked them to. Taking real responsibility for our fellow human beings would mean using force against murderous tyrants such as Saddam Hussein, fine speeches for the representatives of dictators at the UN do nothing for those being tortured or killed by tyrants.

  2. Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:02 pm
    Maybe it is you you should go and fight the good fight Braveheart.

  3. Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:25 pm
    Anon #2. Now that is what I call putting things into perspective for the first Anon.

    Anon#2 lacks a little bit of knowldge between the differences of Canada's war history and U.S war history. Learn and you will see that Canada has done much more in history for people (not for Canada alone). In the U.S their war's are about the benefit of their own country and their own power. I say this about the politicians, I don't believe the majority of Americans believe this is what their destiny is. Only their psycho leaders think this.

    Kevin

    ---
    "Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.

  4. Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:00 am
    Anon #1,

    You sound like you would know a tyrant if you met one. But did you volunteer to go with the U.S. Army? That is possible, you don't have to be American, and infact they'd rather kill other peoples citizens, it's better for their political ratings at home.

  5. Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:20 pm
    Anon #1, I agree with you one hundred percent. Lets go and free all the oppressed using force. Lets start with the country with the highest rate of incarceration, where people of certain ethnic origins cannot travel freely, where 3 charges of possession of marijuana can result in the death penalty, where the last election was rigged, where the ruling elite uses military and economic terrorism to achieve its goals, where the media is corrupt, the government is corrupt, where the government sells weapons of mass destruction to unstable countries, and where the murder rate is 10 times higher than Canada.

    But then again, this country also possesses about half of the known nuclear weapons on the planet, enough to easily obliterate every living organism known to man. And the majority of the self-proclaimed "democracy" believes that their government is acting in their best interest.

    There are some times when you can't use force to achieve a goal. The simple reality is that power belongs to those who seek power, who are power-hungry, and those who succeed in acquiring it are the ones who are not limited by soft morals.

    Now, back to Iraq. I have no qualms about getting rid of Suddam. I do, however, have a problem with using non-existent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as an excuse. And I also have a problem with using the "free the Iraqi people from oppression" excuse when in reality the invasion was all about Oil. And I have a problem with the 10 years (+/-) of economic sanctions that left the Iraqi people in such a vulnerable state. But most of all, I have a serious problem with going into a country not knowing what you're doing, killing thousands of innocent people, knowing the whole time that once the current government is reposed, there is no viable alternative. A democratic government has drawbacks in Iraq. The three major ethnic groups are all at odds with each other and would not tolerate the election of a member of one of the other ethnic groups. And the result of all this is that if and when the US pulls out, it will be Saddam's former supporters who usurp power again anyways. So all the US (and the Brits) has done is to bring death and destruction into Iraq so that US contracting firms can rebuild the country and be paid in money made by selling Iraqi oil.

    Impirial Terrorism. That's what it is.

    The "war on terrorism" is not a war that can be fought with weapons and blood. It is the beginning of an Israeli-Palestinian-style perpetual war of eternal retaliation.

    A war of ideas will NEVER be won by force. Think about Gandhi and what he did and how he did it. THAT is how you win a war of ideas.

    -KY

  6. Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:26 pm
    Yeah, I second that notion! Canada`s role in WW1 and WW2 were impressive, to say the least, and our contribution to the effort in WW2 was out of all the allies, per capita, the LARGEST. (whoops! did it again. sorry.) Why should Canada go off to fight a mess that the US created? Why should we participate in a war of imperialism? The war was only about oil and ensuring that the US dollar remained the premier world currency. Fighting is only for self-defense, not aggression!

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  7. Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:03 am
    Oil is cheaper now than it has ever been in history, the world is awash with oil, so if the Yanks just want cheap oil wouldn't it have been far easier, far far easier, to just buy the stuff from Saddam? - yes, yes of course it would(just in case you still needed the answer). The whole 'the war is all about oil argument' is ludicruous.

  8. Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:17 am
    The Americans had a bad experience in Somolia and Clinton ran away. Leading everyone else to abandon the place too. Ten years later it is still a lawless backwater where the populace is ruled by the gun. If Canadians put their money where there mouth is and wanted to actually help the people of Somolia - we would have stayed there, brought in more firepower and established a government that had some legitimacy in the eyes of the Somolian people, they're suffering to this day. It may have taken a couple of years to put a government together over there, but it would have long been in place by now.

  9. Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:01 am
    If you really want to liberate the Iraqi people from tyrants once and for all, then you would have to go and defeat the USA and Britain. These two countries (first Britain and then the US) are responsible for uprooting budding democracies in these countries and installing your tyrants such as Sadam and The Shah of Iran. I'm really getting tired of people having opinions on subjects but are too lazy to read anything other than their local Sun newspaper. It is totally obvious that you are completely ignorant of the history of the US and Britain in this area of the world and likely elsewhere. A good place to start is Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony Or Survival." Read it and find out some of the things that the US has been up to for the past five decades at least. You will also come to understand who the real terrorists in this world are.

  10. Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:16 am
    First of all, in the same week you submitted this oil has reached an all-time high of $42US per barrel. Secondly, after the US falsely led Sadam to believe it wouldn't object to his invading Kuwait it was cut off from Iraqi oil because of UN sanctions (before this the US was importing 1/4 of all Iraqi oil exports). Thirdly, it is not about controlling Iraq oil for the purpose of importing to the US only but having a hand in controlling mideast oil exports to other countries and thereby controlling their economies. Europe and Asia are far more dependent on mideast oil than the US. Combine a big say in Iraq with the USA's well-known influence with the Saudi royal family and this can easily be done (of course this is being spoiled by the fact that Iraqis did not welcome the US as liberators as they had naively supposed would happen). This war was/is absolutely about oil and American corporate interest in its control.

  11. by avatar Jesse
    Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:51 pm
    By definition, democracy is the will of the people and cannot be forced on a country. Bringing in big guns is not going to change anything, other than focus the somali hate on the foreign invaders. Case in point: Iraq.

    ---
    Jesse

  12. Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:37 pm
    Wake up Canada... last I checked you use US products, follow US economic policy, export heavily to the US, consume US culture, export educated professionals to the US because they can earn decent money and a living that can't be done in Canada.

    Your prized healthcare system is slowly being privatized, and yet your tax rate remains the same.

    As for Iraq, It is easy to complain about something you are not involved in, and criticize it.

    It is also interesting that Canadians' pride lies in wars that happened over 50 years ago. What pride do you have in your country today... Give me something today right now that you are proud of... something that does not include the phrase "better than the US"... You have lost your identity... you stick to the good old days of Trudeau, and pride yourself on Hockey and beer.... (btw... most Canadian hockey players play on US teams)

    What is Canada's role in the World stage? It seems that peacekeeping (see thread above) is losing its luster. Why aren't you cheering about Somalia? The country is so self-involved that it has insulated itself from the rest of the world. Do you have an identity anymore?

    It remains to be seen that the war is about oil and corporations. The claim is that the oil will belong to the Iraqis. I too am skeptical. But a quick check shows that the US gets most of its oil from Canada:

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html

    and a lot of your Canadian corporations have a significant investment from or are subsiduaries of American corporations.

    Remember that the Iraqi people are more free now than before. Remember they are still facing hardship, but not as gruesome as before... Look at the countries of the world who are helping them... trying to establish peace.

    Not the self-involved Canadians. Stop trying to differentiate yourselves from Americans, whining how you are better than them in some obscure way... do what is right for restoring world peace and help out. People from other countries than the US are dying at the hands of al-Qaeda and Iraqi militants... even Iraqis..

  13. by avatar Jesse
    Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:06 am
    Er, did you even read any of the rest of this site? We're trying to change much of what you mentioned because we don't believe it is right to be so heavily dependent on the USA, and because we believe that Canada has its own current worth. Your allegations that we are only proud of what happened 50 years ago are specious; I myself am quite proud of our continuing devotion to Peace Order and Good Government, not to mention an excellent social system and our culture of tolerance. These are all things that the US seems not to care about these days, which to me indicates that we should not be so closely associated.

    I suggest you read the other articles and comments on vive before making such claims.

    ---
    Jesse

  14. Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:23 am
    Yes Jesse, it almost sounded like anon was telling us
    something we didn't know, I mean wake up,... well we are awake, just tied up with U.S. corporate influence! Not to mentioned fighting like mad to stop it and the rest of the country from flowing south, but as far as culture goes, that might be a debatable point, since how many Canadians,comedians, movie stars, network anchors,musicians are very big in the U.S.? So maybe it's our culture that is being exported and consumed by the U.S.?

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news