TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Lest we forget and vote conservative: re joining in Iraq war

Lest we forget and vote conservative: re joining in Iraq war

Conservative Canadians Speak Out!
Wall Street Journal | 3/28/03 | Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day

Canadians Stand With You

By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879589/posts

just remember that although we lost some 200 million over the sponsership scandel it is still probably cost us a hell of alot less then going to war in Iraq not to mention that at least we are not out there killing innocent civilians.

Swilly san

i seriously dont think anyone would be stupid enough to vote conservative

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit i seriously dont think anyone would be stupid enough to vote conservative

Well they're in the lead nationally...

I think this thread is misleading and exemplifies a severe lack of understanding regarding the conservative party. Yes, this was the position of the party 2 years ago, however, it is not so currently. The position taken seems to rely on the assumption that the conservatives are a grass roots party that will do what their core supporters want regardless of the broader public opinion. This was true of the Reform party, however, the conservatives have graduated from being a grassroots party to being a brokerage party much like the Liberals. You can rest assured that the advisors in the conservative party recognize that the Canadian people want no truck or trade regarding the war in Iraq. Joining the occupation would certainly hurt them amongst the electorate and more importantly would signal to the red tories that the new party cannot be trusted and has not been moderated from their former more right wing incarnation. There is little to no reason one should fear that a Conservative victory would result in our military being deployed to Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Stingray Well they're in the lead nationally...

\
By quite a large margin apparently.
I dunno, IMO I don't think they'll bring anything good to the average Canadian.

Stockwell Day should've had the leadership.

That was the one thing i respected chretien for, standing up to the americans about iraq. it wasnt our war, and we did not need to fight it. and i think in retrospect, most will agree it was the right decision.

Well, talk about political ignorance.

Already gone over a few times that it would be a political suicide for Harper to get Canada actively involved in Iraq.

Canadian military is committed to Afghanistan for at least next few years anyways (2000 members starting this month) so it's not like Canada can come up with any troops to send.

It's the thought that counts. What if we did have the troops?

I don't want to vote for a party that makes value judgments based on what the voting population thinks. I want a government with critical thinking skills. I want them to bite the fucking bullet and go against ALL of Canada when it truly makes sense to do so. This goes for the liberals and the NDP. And that's why, I can't vote for anyone this election.

quote:

Originally posted by psychosomatica It's the thought that counts. What if we did have the troops? I don't want to vote for a party that makes value judgments based on what the voting population thinks. I want a government with critical thinking skills. I want them to bite the fucking bullet and go against ALL of Canada when it truly makes sense to do so. This goes for the liberals and the NDP. And that's why, I can't vote for anyone this election.

I can understand your sentiment, however, only brokerage parties have any hope to form government (or even win the requisit number of seats to acheive official party status in parliament... with the exception of the Reform party). This country is far too fractured in it's ideological bases, interests, and values for a grassroots party to acheive wide spread support.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit i seriously dont think anyone would be stupid enough to vote conservative

What we all forget is that there were Canadian Soldiers in Iraq. Our special forces group was there and Bush let out that they were there...Moral....I foget the name of this special unit but hasn't the government denied its very existance for the longest time.....then oops...bush lets the cat outta the bag.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced What we all forget is that there were Canadian Soldiers in Iraq. Our special forces group was there and Bush let out that they were there...Moral....I foget the name of this special unit but hasn't the government denied its very existance for the longest time.....then oops...bush lets the cat outta the bag.

You're confusing two seperate incidents (crackhead).

The "secret" special unit you refer to is Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) - a highly specialized and mobile counter terrorism/covert operations unit. JTF2 was deployed to AFGANISTAN prior to any official declaration from the Canadian Forces or government. JTF2 was a "secret" (in quotes because many including myself knew of their existance long before this incident) unit and Bush refered to them by name when he was thanking countries for their support.

The troops that were in Iraq were there under a US flag, not a Canadian one. Canada, USA, UK, and probably some other NATO nations routinely send members to train/serve as parts of units for their allies. This is mainly done as a cross training exercise so that troops from each nation will be familure with the workings, command structure, and equipment of their allies. It is a very effective way a sharing information and refining techniques. Some Canadian troops were on exchange with a US unit when that unit was deployed to Iraq. As the protocols of this program requires that the exchange troops participate in all the activities of their host unit (including deployment) our troops were sent to Iraq. It must be remembered, however, that during the exchange period troops are deemed to be members of the host nation's military, subsequently, we had no grounds upon which to impeid their deployment.

^Bingo

It was be a falicy to think that Canadians would actually let our partners do this on thier own anyways.
While the 'official' party stance was a spineless one, make no doubt about it, we were there...

Hey swilly, should the Canadian Forces be in Afghanistan?

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Hey swilly, should the Canadian Forces be in Afghanistan?

Nope! If they had left the socialist government that was present in afghanistan and not support all the radical Islamic groups which resulted in the invasion of the soviets, none of this would be a problem.

How about we address the fact that Paul martin was ALSO in favour of sending troops to iraq and was also against same sex marriage.

No one ever talks about that though do they?

quote:

Originally posted by swilly Nope! If they had left the socialist government that was present in afghanistan and not support all the radical Islamic groups which resulted in the invasion of the soviets, none of this would be a problem.

but it IS a problem and it needed to be dealt with. Hindsight is 20/20

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 but it IS a problem and it needed to be dealt with. Hindsight is 20/20

+1. Yes, Nato should have kept their nose out of Afganistan during the Soviet war but the we didn't. We created a problem by involving ourselves in their conflict. That problem eventually bit many Nato nations in the ass. It is a problem that needed and still needs solving. Moreover, even if not for our past sins.... we participated in the removal of the established government and the power structure that went along with it. Once you remove the government of a state you destroy order. As a result it is necessary that someone stay behind to maintain order until the new government can establish it's legitimacy and it's infrastructure. To pull out prior to that happening would simply destabalize the area resulting in much larger problems then existed prior to the military intervention.

quote:

Originally posted by swilly just remember that although we lost some 200 million over the sponsership scandel it is still probably cost us a hell of alot less then going to war in Iraq not to mention that at least we are not out there killing innocent civilians. Swilly san

yeah lets ILLEGALY attack countries just as long it doesnt cost us much

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard +1. Yes, Nato should have kept their nose out of Afganistan during the Soviet war but the we didn't. We created a problem by involving ourselves in their conflict. That problem eventually bit many Nato nations in the ass. It is a problem that needed and still needs solving.

Interesting considering the Soviets decided to involve themselves in the conflict, setting up their own puppet govt. (Ironically, removing a Socialist govt in place)

quote:

Moreover, even if not for our past sins.... we participated in the removal of the established government and the power structure that went along with it. Once you remove the government of a state you destroy order. As a result it is necessary that someone stay behind to maintain order until the new government can establish it's legitimacy and it's infrastructure. To pull out prior to that happening would simply destabalize the area resulting in much larger problems then existed prior to the military intervention.

A bad govt is still a bad govt, no matter how much 'order' it kept.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree A bad govt is still a bad govt, no matter how much 'order' it kept.

I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that because we removed the existing government in Afganistan (2001) we need to maintain a presence to maintain order until the new government can be legitimized and established. If we (meaning NATO) were to pull out now it would create a power vacuum which would result in the current government controling some areas but the vast majority being controled by local warlords. We cannot do that, it would be irresponsible.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard To pull out prior to that happening would simply destabalize the area resulting in much larger problems

Why does that make me laugh so hard.....are you still talking military

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.