babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » U.S. report says Canada did help in Iraq war

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: U.S. report says Canada did help in Iraq war
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 27 June 2003 11:06 AM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I picked up on this while skimming FD today. Who says they're good for nothing?

The PMO and Minister of Foreign Wars Graham Ain't Gonna Like This!

quote:
OTTAWA -- The U.S. military is crediting Canada's air force with taking part in the Iraq war by contributing three transport planes to support the American-led invasion force, the Ottawa Citizen reported yesterday. But Canadian Forces officials aren't exactly jumping at the kudos contained in a detailed U.S. air force study of the war, a conflict in which Prime Minister Jean Chretien insisted the country's military never took part.

"Air operations used virtually all types of combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory," wrote air force Lt.-Gen. T. Michael Moseley in the report issued April 30. "Coalition aircraft came from the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia."

Lt.-Gen. Moseley helped oversee the air portion of the war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. He writes his study was compiled with input from Canadian and allied officers.


PS to Babble staff: any chance we can get those FD "avatars" (profile pictures) in use here? TYVM!

[ 27 June 2003: Message edited by: majorvictory ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3285

posted 27 June 2003 03:55 PM      Profile for Kindred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard a thing on the news that the US was not exactly "accurate" in their reports of CDN involvement and that transport ships maintained a Stand By" position and at no time aided or supported US military - the US general was the one making the announcement that they had "erred" in the report
From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 27 June 2003 04:01 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
War? What war?
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 February 2008 04:25 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I picked up a copy of Common Ground today, and found in it two articles by babbler Richard Sanders.

One is about the RADARSAT scandal, which Richard has posted about here extensively.

The other was this:

Canada's Secret War in Iraq
[excerpts]

quote:
On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:


Richard goes on to list the many ways Canada has aided the war against Iraq, with brief descriptions for each:

• Escorting the US Navy
• Leading the coalition Navy
• Providing war planners
• Commanding the war
• Helping coordinate the war
• Providing airspace and refuelling
• Providing air transport
• Freeing up US troops
• Providing ground troops
• Testing weapons and drones
• Depleted uranium (DU) weapons
• Providing RADARSAT data
• Diplomatic support
• Training Iraqi police
• Training Iraqi troops
• Funding Iraq’s interior ministry
• Military exports
• Canada Pension Plan investments

This is a very useful article. I hope rabble considers asking him to let them reprint it, or at least link to it.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 05 February 2008 05:14 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
PS to Babble staff: any chance we can get those FD "avatars" (profile pictures) in use here? TYVM!

Sure...When you pry access to the control panel from my cold dead hands.

Actually, it's impossible here, and will remian a no go on the upgrade whenever that happens.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 05 February 2008 05:55 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Richard goes on to list the many ways Canada has aided the war against Iraq, with brief descriptions for each:

• Escorting the US Navy
• Leading the coalition Navy
• Providing war planners
• Commanding the war
• Helping coordinate the war
• Providing airspace and refuelling
• Providing air transport
• Freeing up US troops
• Providing ground troops
• Testing weapons and drones
• Depleted uranium (DU) weapons
• Providing RADARSAT data
• Diplomatic support
• Training Iraqi police
• Training Iraqi troops
• Funding Iraq’s interior ministry
• Military exports
• Canada Pension Plan investments

This is a very useful article. I hope rabble considers asking him to let them reprint it, or at least link to it.


Some of the points have merit, however others do not, as indicated:

• Escorting the US Navy - During the pre-war UN Sanctions program, Cdn frigates and destroyers often formed part of US Carrier Battle Groups that conducted surveillance and boarding of ships bound for Iraqi ports. They did not form part of naval task forces conducting offensive operations during the war.

• Leading the coalition Navy - On occasion, during the pre-war sanctions program, a cdn was appointed as Commander of the fleet conducting boarding operations.

• Providing war planners - from exchange personnel already on site with US formations, as there have been exchanges ongoing for many years.

• Commanding the war - From a pre-existing exchange position arrangement. Actually it was a Deputy Commander role.

• Helping coordinate the war - ditto...

• Providing airspace and refuelling - Not remarkable in it's own right, but conducted routinely as part of a standing agreement with all NATO countries since 1949.

• Providing air transport - 3 cargo planes stationed in the gulf region supported Afghan operations, not Iraqi ones.

• Freeing up US troops - True, from Afghanistan.

• Providing ground troops - False, with the exception of the aforementioned handful of exchange personnel.

• Testing weapons and drones - Been happening for decades.

• Depleted uranium (DU) weapons - Maybe providing uranium, as for weapons, no one has to provide the US anything with their massive defense tab.

• Providing RADARSAT data - True

• Diplomatic support - True

• Training Iraqi police - True

• Training Iraqi troops - False

• Funding Iraq’s interior ministry - Many nations are now contributing toward the upkeep of the Iraqi government, where they did not at the beginning.

• Military exports - a constant occurence for generations.

• Canada Pension Plan investments - One of many nefarious portfolios that the plan supports.

It also could be added that Canadian trade in natural resources, food, and investment in US companies contributed to the overall war effort, in addition to holiday travellers who paid taxes into the US coffers.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fleabitn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14927

posted 05 February 2008 06:45 PM      Profile for Fleabitn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We have a long history of providing supply and support to US military adventures. Canada is the leading uranium supplier in the world. Canada ranked as the 6th largest weapons exporter in 2004. (CDN +$1B) The USA is our number one buyer.
http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/monitor/mons05c.htm

Increasingly, we are seeing the practical integration of the Canadian military into the US forces and command structure.
We must remember that the same money and the same playbook used to grab power in the States is fuelling the (Neo-)CONs in this country. Militarism is inherent in their thinking. There can be no doubt we are full (but always junior) partners in the War OF Terror.
The military, from General Hillier on down, is more than delighted with these arrangements--they get to play with the big boys with their big toys. The PMO is able to maintain the thin illusion of fighting the “good” war in Afghanistan, and not the “bad” war in Iraq. Once again, One Big Media in this country is blind and complicit.NYT[URL=http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2 008/01/major-canadian-army-exercise-in-texas.html]3300 troops[/URL]


From: between thought and action | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 February 2008 08:26 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
• Escorting the US Navy - During the pre-war UN Sanctions program, Cdn frigates and destroyers often formed part of US Carrier Battle Groups that conducted surveillance and boarding of ships bound for Iraqi ports. They did not form part of naval task forces conducting offensive operations during the war.
As Richard points out, "Thirteen hundred Canadian troops aboard Canada's multibillion dollar warships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq." Canada had three frigates in the Persian Gulf as part of a multi-national task force, all under the command of Canada's Commodore Roger Girouard, who reported to U.S. Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, head of the US Fifth Fleet. Their job was to protect the U.S. aircraft carriers from which the air war against Iraq was launched.
quote:
• Providing war planners - from exchange personnel already on site with US formations, as there have been exchanges ongoing for many years.
As Richard says, "At least two dozen Canadian war planners working at US Central Command in Florida were transferred to the Persian Gulf in early 2003 to help oversee the war's complicated logistics." These Canadian military planners, based at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, had been working for months on the planning of the war. A month before the war began, they were transferred to the U.S. military's forward command-and-control HQ in Qatar, where they helped to run the war itself.
quote:
• Commanding the war - From a pre-existing exchange position arrangement. Actually it was a Deputy Commander role.
Whether pre-existing or not, the Canadian government and armed forces continued to carry out important roles in the Iraq War. If the Canadian government had really wanted to stay out of the war, they could have refused to allow these pre-existing peacetime arrangements to continue into wartime.
quote:
• Providing air transport - 3 cargo planes stationed in the gulf region supported Afghan operations, not Iraqi ones.

This credible source disagrees:
quote:
Canada provided three CC-130s to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq reported Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, commander of Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF), in his comprehensive document entitled “Operation Iraqi Freedom: By the Numbers” (April 30, 2003 by CENTAF, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. www.urbanoperations.com/oifcentaf.pdf). Canadian military spokesperson, Maj. Lynn Chaloux, denied that the Canadian CC-130s were used in the Iraq war, saying “We supported Enduring Freedom, the war on terrorism, not Iraqi Freedom, the war in Iraq.” However, U.S. air force spokesperson Lt. Sara Banda confirmed that Moseley’s report dealt only with aircraft used in the 2003 Iraq war, not Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. (Ottawa Citizen, June 14, 2003, page 1.)

quote:
• Providing ground troops - False, with the exception of the aforementioned handful of exchange personnel.

Right - it's "false", except that it's true. Once again, if you're really staying out of a war, you don't loan troops to the belligerent countries. How is that so hard to understand?
quote:
• Depleted uranium (DU) weapons - Maybe providing uranium, as for weapons, no one has to provide the US anything with their massive defense tab.
I prefer Richard Sanders's version of the facts: "Our government pretends that Canada's uranium is sold for 'peaceful' purposes only, but absolutely nothing is done to stop the US from using DU in their weapons."
quote:
• Training Iraqi troops - False
What part of this is "false"?
quote:
High-level Canadian military personnel joined the "NATO Training Mission in Iraq" to "train the trainers" of Iraqi Security Forces who are on the leading edge of the US occupation. A Canadian colonel, under NATO command, was chief of staff at the Baghdad-based training mission. Canada was the leading donor to this centre, providing an initial $810 thousand.
Don't believe Sanders? Do you believe NATO?
quote:
the Alliance is helping Iraq provide for its own security by training Iraqi military personnel, supporting the development of the country’s security institutions, and coordinating the delivery of equipment.

The decision to establish a NATO training mission in Iraq was made in 2004 in response to a request of the Iraqi Interim Government.

All NATO member countries are contributing to the training effort either in or outside Iraq, through financial contributions or donations of equipment.



quote:
• Canada Pension Plan investments - One of many nefarious portfolios that the plan supports.
One? Oh, no. The CPP has invested at least $2.55 billion in domestic and foreign military corporations, including 15 of the world's top 20 war contractors, producing 33 major weapons delivery systems used in the Iraq War. Source

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 06 February 2008 04:01 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
One? Oh, no. The CPP has invested at least $2.55 billion in domestic and foreign military corporations, including 15 of the world's top 20 war contractors, producing 33 major weapons delivery systems used in the Iraq War. Source

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


I suppose its a case of believing what you read in it's totality. Without considering the other contributions, the mere fact that exchange personnel took a direct role in the planning and execution of the war makes the case hands down as to Canada's involvement. This alone highlights in plain view that we have a pack of liars governing us. As for the other points, unless one has concrete proof or knowledge one way or the other, it really does boil down to what you are prepared to accept as true from either source. Outside of that, the key here is that we already know for certain that both the liberals and cons play shell games with truth.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 06 February 2008 07:03 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course, it is not possible that Canada could provide ZERO support for the Iraq war. Many US Divisions have Canadian military observers attached to them. This is also true of British and French Armies.

When the US decided to invade Iraq, the government of the day tried to reduce the Canadian presence to a minimum, but were opposed by Canadian military sources, which were concerned about ongoing co-operation with the Americans, intelligence, etc.

All of this is detailed in the Pigott and Stein book, Unexpected War, Canada in Kandahar.

It is a bit like having your foot buried in mud; it's hard to extract without traces remaining.

The overall intention of the Canadian government was not to be a participant in the Iraq war; in fact, it was the unarticulated, but real conclusion of Canada that the Iraq War violated international law, and that we should therefore stay away.

You can see the now-Liberal foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae, making this point here, on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWgHAFzdnY

In the real world, bordering countries do not "support" or "oppose" in an absolutely clean way, because institutions interlock to some extent.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 February 2008 07:23 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
When the US decided to invade Iraq, the government of the day tried to reduce the Canadian presence to a minimum, but were opposed by Canadian military sources, which were concerned about ongoing co-operation with the Americans, intelligence, etc.
Thank you so much for your brilliant defence of the Liberal Party line. I guess the military really calls the shots, and the poor Liberal politicians were powerless to stop Canada's involvement in the illegal war?

Are you actually commending to babblers the slimy self-congratulatory lies of that would-be Liberal cabinet minister?

Rae actually had the nerve to suggest Canada had not been involved in the Vietnam war, when its complicity has been well-documented and was a main theme of the Canadian anti-war movement in the 1960's and 1970's.

Of course as a student at that time Rae would have nothing to do with the anti-war movement, so I guess he could be forgiven for being out of touch.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 06 February 2008 09:01 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canadians are generally unaware of the extent Canada has been (and continues to be in an expanded role) in the Iraq war and occupation. Most Canadians I talk to when discussing Afghanistan say things like: "well, at least we stayed out of Iraq".

This perception shows the success of that fictive disinformation, effectively used once more by the Manley report which went out its way to emphasize a disconnect between Iraq and our noble role in Afghanistan.
In fact, the two conflicts, and Canada's role in them, are part of a political and military continuum. To admit this fact is to admit Canada is largely integrated with, and subservient to, the US. For the US, Canada's military is a self-funded mercenary army.
In discussion of Canada in Afghanistan and Iraq, the prime question (the elephant in the room that is aways deliberately ignored) is: "Can Canada's g military ever be independent of US policy?"

The integrated propaganda system between the Canadian Government and press is such that all it takes is the Government to avoid comment on our role in Iraq--and the press not to ask questions or be "disruptive" by saying "wait a minute" we ARE in Iraq. But it is a shared power base between press and government. As deep integration becomes finalized, the deception will no longer need to be maintained.

I posted links to this IPS news story before but t the whole story merits reading and can be found here:

IPS: Canada in Iraq
POLITICS: Canadian General Takes Senior Command Role in Iraq
By Jon Elmer and Anthony Fenton

VANCOUVER, Jan 23 (IPS) - Despite the government's official position abstaining from combat in Iraq, Canada has dispatched yet another top general to the command group overseeing day-to-day operations for the U.S.-led occupation and counterinsurgency war.

Brigadier-General Nicolas Matern, a Special Forces officer and former commander of Canada's elite counter-terrorism unit, will serve as deputy to Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III, incoming commander of the 170,000-strong Multi National Corps-Iraq beginning in mid-February.

Matern is the third Canadian general to serve in the command group of Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of an exchange programme that places Canadian Forces officers in leadership positions in the U.S. military. His deployment is part of a three-year post with the U.S. Army's 18th Airborne Corps, based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Officials at Fort Bragg confirmed that Matern has already been deployed to Iraq, though no official statement has been made by Canadian officials.
......

During his first visit to Washington as Prime Minister in 2006, Stephen Harper boasted that the North American alliance was the "strongest relationship of any two countries, not just on the planet, but in the history of mankind." As much as 90 percent of Canadian trade is with the U.S., with upwards of two billion dollars a day in goods and services crossing the border.

There are also economic interests in Iraq itself. The April 2007 Iraq Reconstruction Report lists Canada as the fourth largest importer of Iraqi oil. Industry Canada records that total Canadian imports from Iraq have risen from 1.06 billion dollars in 2002 to 1.61 billion dollars in 2006, making Iraq second only to Saudi Arabia as a Middle Eastern source for Canadian imports.
According to Canada's Defence Policy Statement, the increased collaboration with the U.S. military will "not see the Canadian Forces replicate every function of the world's premier militaries," but rather fill niche roles that allow Canada's interventionist capabilities to be relevant and credible.

To this end, Matern's Special Forces background is seen as an asset. "He comes in with a unique set of skills," Col. Bill Buckner of the 18th Airborne told the Ottawa Citizen. "We're the home of the airborne and the special operating forces, so he fits in very nicely to this warrior ethos we have here."

Matern was a commander in the secretive commando unit, Joint Task Force-2, before being promoted to deputy commander of the newly created Canadian Special Operations Forces Command.

Canada's most important foreign policy documents list Iraq, along with Afghanistan, Haiti, Sudan, and Israel-Palestine, as areas of "strategic priority".
.....
Nevertheless, Canada's contribution to the mission is notable. In 2003, Canada pledged 300 million dollars in aid and reconstruction in Iraq. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has helped train more than 30,000 Iraqi security forces in neighbouring Jordan, and has had top level advisors operating within the Iraqi interior ministry. As well, Canadian frigates continue to operate alongside the U.S. aircraft carriers in the Arabian Gulf that are a primary staging platform for bombing raids in Iraq. ....
......
Around the same time that Canada opted out of combat in Iraq, it increased its combat role in Afghanistan, ultimately taking command of the counterinsurgency war in southern Afghanistan.

Unlike the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan, which is subject to relatively significant coverage domestically, Canada's participation in Iraq is handled much more carefully by Canadian officials.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay did not return a call seeking comment and no official statement has accompanied Matern's recent deployment...."


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 06 February 2008 11:07 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is also the simple fact that every soldier we field in Afghanistan means 1 more soldier in the US army in Iraq
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 07 February 2008 06:26 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My article in CommonGround can be found here:

Canada’s secret war in Iraq

There is also a section on this topic in an online slideshow that I put together on Canada's hypocritical role re: Iraq, Afghanistan and BMD.

The Iraq section starts here:
Slideshow: Canada's role in Iraq War

I find it humourous to read some of the specious "arguments" in the discussion above that are trying to deny the facts in my article.

It seems that the main reason my points are supposedly FALSE is that they've been TRUE for such a long time.

As this form of argument goes, it is apparantly NOT TRUE that Canada is aiding and abetting the Iraq war because...

Canada has long been aiding and abetting US wars and this is just one more example.

Still, although it has been true for so long, most Canadians (even, I'm afraid to say, most progressive peace activists) have no idea that our government and troops were and are still so deeply complicit in this horrific war.

Hence why should Canadians protest it?

Just as they remain ignorant about our government's deep complicity in BMD.

The best way ever designed to stop protests is to trick the protesters into thinking they've "won."

People are still hanging onto the ludicrous myth that Canada is some wondrous force for peace in the world, and its corollary still holds sway too, ie., that the Liberal Party is a force for global peace.

With such hog slollop awash in the farmyard, the animals will never be aware that they should complain, let alone revolt, and -- even as they are led to slaughter -- they will continue to vote for the farmer who sells them to market and invest in the local butchery business.

But thank goodness all this cynicism isn't really true, because -- as we all supposedly know -- it's been going on for so long.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 February 2008 07:34 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thank you so much for your brilliant defence of the Liberal Party line

Oh! And I thought that pointing out that YOU always defend the positions of the Communist Party is not allowed on babble!

But yet you, and the other Communist Party hacks on babble (you know, the ones who admit it and then erase the admission in conformity with Party policy) are free to slime whoever you want.

I know it is fun to be simplistic and think about things in black-and-white categories, but reality is much more complicated than that.

Canada bad! Stalin good! USA bad! Castro good!

What a farce.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 February 2008 07:41 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, nary a mention of Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek or Batista? You worry me, Jeff.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 February 2008 07:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, quit whining, Jeff. He didn't claim you were a member of the Liberal Party, he said you were defending the Liberal Party line on this issue. That's a little bit different than your usual red-baiting and commies-under-the-bed routine.

If he starts accusing you, in post after post after post, of being a closeted Liberal Party member, then maybe you'll have a complaint.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 February 2008 07:42 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WTF?

How many times have you been told not to come here and red-bait babblers?

Why are you still allowed to post your nonsensical McCarthyite right-wing shit here?

If we had real moderators you would have been gone long ago.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 February 2008 07:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, M. Spector, you were pretty snippy yourself - you can take some credit for the exchange. Jeff's original post that you responded to didn't merit such a confrontational response. "Real" moderators take the whole exchange into account. You got his back up, and he bit. Sure, he shouldn't have, and he went over the top, but I'm sure you'll both survive it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 February 2008 08:09 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, M. Spector, you were pretty snippy yourself.
I merely pointed out the obvious - that he was defending the position of the former Liberal government. Christ, he even gave us a link to a fucking video of Bob Rae to prove how virtuous the Liberals are.

Things are pretty bad when moderators tolerate babblers being smeared as Stalinists because they oppose the Liberal Party's hypocrisy on the Iraq war.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 February 2008 08:26 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My original point, which has nothing to do with the "line" of the Liberal party (as if they had one) was this:

Canada's participation in the Iraq War approaches zero. There are no Canadians on patrol in Iraq, there are no Canadian generals giving orders to US, or Canadian, or any other troops there.

Now, Certain Persons need to make everything REAL simple. So, even though Canada is making an effort not to get drawn into Iraq, they will try to make a mountain out of the molehill.


I used to see this all the time from the far right. You know, "Cuba is interfering in Colombia! Cuba is subverting Venezuela!" And then you would find that Cuba had four observers somewhere or other, and two carried pistols for personal safety.

The problem always arises when dealing with true believers. They don't believe in applying the same standards to their enemy (in this case Canada) as to their friends (ie. Cuba, Chavez in Venezuela, etc.)


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 February 2008 09:24 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

The problem always arises when dealing with true believers. They don't believe in applying the same standards to their enemy (in this case Canada) as to their friends (ie. Cuba, Chavez in Venezuela, etc.)


Canada is something like 14th in military spending while Cuba is way down the list. Our high tech exports to the Pentagon and U.S. military contractors don't show up in Canada's GDP export figures. The USSA's, and some of Canada's apparently, is a closed economy accountable to no one. Canada is part of the vicious empire, Jeff.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 07 February 2008 10:59 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
My original point...
Canada's participation in the Iraq War approaches zero. There are no Canadians on patrol in Iraq, there are no Canadian generals giving orders to US, or Canadian, or any other troops there.



Just how do you square your claims with the report linked above. It begins:
"IPS: Canada in Iraq
POLITICS: Canadian General Takes Senior Command Role in Iraq
By Jon Elmer and Anthony Fenton

VANCOUVER, Jan 23 (IPS) - Despite the government's official position abstaining from combat in Iraq, Canada has dispatched yet another top general to the command group overseeing day-to-day operations for the U.S.-led occupation and counterinsurgency war...."
Are these fabrications of the communist party?
IPS: Canada in Iraq


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 07 February 2008 11:54 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The reason for pointing out that Canada is indeed involved in the Iraq War, which even Jeff House does not dispute, is that there is a myth that pervades the Canadian mind that Canada is NOT involved.

Ask Joe and Jane Canadian -- and especially Jack Activist and Jill Radical -- about the Canadian government and the Iraq War and they will probably say that that they are dang proud that our wonderful Liberal government said NO to the US war and decided not to participate or be involved in any way shape or form.

We need to counter such myths.

Sure, Canada could have been MORE involved. That's not the point.

The point is we didn't abstain from the war altogether as people so widely believe.

We didn't stay out of the war as is so often said in the media.

The Canadian gov't, and therefore us taxpayers, were and are still deeply involved --- "MORE SO THAN MOST of the countries on the list of the Coalition of the Willing." So said, i'm paraphrasing here, US Ambassador Cellucci. His exact words are quoted in my article, see link in my previous message.

I believe Cellucci on that, plus it is a verifiable fact that I've backed up with 18 categories of support. Another category might be listed as major DND funding to "strategic" academic "institutes" and "think tanks" focused on "defence" and "security" that are based in various Cdn universities that employ govt mouthpieces who promote research and propaganda that aids and abetts the commission of the war crimes in Iraq. It's a vague category of support some will say but nevertheless "information war" is recognized by the Pentagon as a vital front on which wars are waged.

All that aside, I would expect that even Jeff House would believe the US Ambassador's assessment that Canada gave the US major support for the Iraq war.

Let's not quibble about the exact amount of our government's participation. The point is that Canada's government made (and is making) a major contribution to that war and yet we aren't wanting the "credit" for it.

WHY?

Our government, as usual, wants to do as much as it possibly can to support US wars, while at the same time it wants to be seen to be doing as little as possible.

They know Canadians are against such wars. They want to get re-elected.

This is the crux of much Canadian government hypocrisy.

It is that HYPOCRISY that is our real target plus the extreme NAIVITE of Canadian activists who fall for the PR hype about Canada being the world's great peacemaker.

Let's focus on those issues and not degenerate this discussion into red-baiting.

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 February 2008 12:07 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would expect that even Jeff House would believe the US Ambassador on his assessment about Canada's major support for the Iraq war.

Actually, no. I think the US Ambassador often says things which are untrue.

I recall the "Coalition of the Willing" which was supposed to be this vast alliance of countries supporting US policy.

In fact, some of the countries provided two observers, or maybe a dentist and a truckdriver.

So, if it suits the US, they will exaggerate the support they are being given.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 February 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[QB]....Canada's participation in the Iraq War approaches zero. There are no Canadians on patrol in Iraq, there are no Canadian generals giving orders to US, or Canadian, or any other troops there....QB]

To be fair here, Deputy Commander of the Baghdad Multinational Division sounds in my mind at least to be a position that requires giving the occasional order to subordinate US formations. We've had a few of our generals take a turn at this.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 February 2008 12:15 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
The reason for pointing out that Canada is indeed involved in the Iraq War, which even Jeff House does not dispute, is that there is a myth that pervades the Canadian mind that Canada is NOT involved. Ask Joe and Jane Canadian -- and especially Jack Activist and Jill Radical -- about the Canadian government and the Iraq War and they will probably say that that they are dang proud that our wonderful Liberal government said NO to the US war and decided not to participate or be involved in any way shape or form. We need to counter such myths.

Yes we certainly do, however in doing so, credibility with the information that is offered to the public in the form of true hidden facts cannot be compromised.

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 February 2008 12:25 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
[QB] ....I believe Cellucci on that, plus it is a verifiable fact that I've backed up with 18 categories of support....{/QB]

Cellucci, being the neo-con shill that he is, would no doubt have an underlying reason for making it known that his benefactors have more support in the coalition of the willing than is commonly known. It's a caveat to take into consideration. However, like you said, quibbling on what the level of support consists of is secondary to the point, that we've been told by two successive Governments, the Lib/Cons, that we stayed out of the Iraq War.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 February 2008 12:35 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quibbling on what the level of support consists of is secondary to the point, that we've been told by two successive Governments, the Lib/Cons, that we stayed out of the Iraq War.

I see. And I note that Richard is saying that "we didn't abstain from the Iraq war ALTOGETHER." (Emphasis added).

Well, no. Especially if you count things the way Richard does in his article, where it counts as Canadian support for the Iraq War that Canada allows the US to have access to Canadian airspace and their planes sometimes refuel here.

By that standard, Sweden helped Nazi Germany attack England, because they allowed iron ore to cross their country from Norway. That ore later became the Luftwaffe! But Sweden was still a neutral, even though they didn't "abstain altogether".


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 February 2008 12:38 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Canada is something like 14th in military spending while Cuba is way down the list. Our high tech exports to the Pentagon and U.S. military contractors don't show up in Canada's GDP export figures. The USSA's, and some of Canada's apparently, is a closed economy accountable to no one. Canada is part of the vicious empire, Jeff.

If we're looking at respective geographical areas in isolation to other factors, that would account for some of our higher defense spending costs. Of course, to that we would have to include the agendas of our own domestic defense industry.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 February 2008 12:44 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Well, no. Especially if you count things the way Richard does in his article, where it counts as Canadian support for the Iraq War that Canada allows the US to have access to Canadian airspace and their planes sometimes refuel here.
By that standard, Sweden helped Nazi Germany attack England, because they allowed iron ore to cross their country from Norway. That ore later became the Luftwaffe! But Sweden was still a neutral, even though they didn't "abstain altogether".

Apples and oranges Jeff. But besides that, I'd seriously doubt it takes a northern flight plan through Canada to refuel planes departing the US on their way to Iraq.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 February 2008 01:16 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'd seriously doubt it takes a northern flight plan through Canada to refuel planes departing the US on their way to Iraq.

Well, that's my point, since that is given by by Richard as an example of Canadian support for the US invasion of Iraq.

In Richard's article, he also says that " Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien supported the “right” of the US to invade Iraq, although Kofi Annan said it was an illegal occupation." This is listed as "Diplomatic Support" for the Iraq war by Canada.

I don't believe Chretien ever made any such statement.

Source, please.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 February 2008 01:23 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Well, that's my point, since that is given by by Richard as an example of Canadian support for the US invasion of Iraq.
In Richard's article, he also says that " Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien supported the “right” of the US to invade Iraq, although Kofi Annan said it was an illegal occupation." This is listed as "Diplomatic Support" for the Iraq war by Canada.
I don't believe Chretien ever made any such statement. Source, please.

I believe Chretien was asked in a scrum at one point who he wanted to win the war, sort of a simple minded question from one of the Canwest reporters at the time. I thought his response sounded something like him wanting the US to win. I suppose that could count as diplomatic support.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 February 2008 02:28 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada has long supported the military-industrial complex. We didn't draft people into the VietNam war, but we supplied technical assistance and raw materials.

Canada didn't participate in the Talibanization of Central Asia, but we condemned the Soviets for their military support of the PDPA government. And we welcomed six Soviet soldiers who fled that war in 1986 and hailed them as heroes upon entry into Canada. We accepted the Washington line to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and I know one amateur Canadian athlete whose life ambitions to be an Olympian were dashed because Ottawa kowtowed to the U.S. then.

And since NATO countries turned their backs on the ensuing carnage in that country from 1992 to 1996, Canada is now participating in American imperialism in Afghanistan.

After Gulf War I, Canadian weapons exports to Middle Eastern countries increased five-fold. Canada is helping to make the world a safe place for U.S. hypocrisy.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 February 2008 02:29 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, is there a source so we might know what he said exactly?

So far, it doesn't sound like a statement that the US had a "right" to invade Iraq.

Since this is given as a big
example of Canada supporting the war in Iraq, maybe it should be specified.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 February 2008 02:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, but there is more than one U.S.-sponsored war happening. So what our Liberal regime in Ottawa did at the time was provide support for the war in Iraq surreptitiously by inserting Canaidans into that same country where we once condemned a military occupation.

Because if Canada did not support the war in Iraq, then it would be a logical assumption that we should probably not support the one other U.S. military occupation on the other side of the planet at the same time.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 08 February 2008 02:14 PM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff asks for my source on Chretien's quote. So here's the start of the article...


Stop Criticizing US Over Iraq, Canadian PM Says
Reuters
Thursday, March 20, 2003; 4:40 PM

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Jean Chretien...urged Canadians on Thursday not to criticize the United States for attacking Iraq because this could be construed as supporting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

==========================

My comment: Since Chretien "urged Canadians...not to criticize the United States for attacking Iraq" just imagine how strongly he felt about trying to stop Canadians from protesting against the war. The best way to ensure that Canadians don't protest a war is to make them believe that Canada is not involved. Mission accomplished. How many protests against the Iraq war do we see in canada?]

Here's another quote from the article:

"Chretien...did not criticize Washington on Thursday and said he hoped the war would be short with a minimum of casualties.

"At this point I think there is no use debating the reasons why some people think war is necessary and some people think it is not. We should not say anything that would comfort Saddam Hussein," he told reporters.

A government official said Chretien was "asking people to cool down the rhetoric" and added: "That is the time not to step up any personal attack."

==================

My comment: So our government was telling us not to "attack" US policies with our words even though the US was "attacking" Iraqi civilians with bombs (with covert Canadian help).

The US was bombing the hell out of Iraq (with our help) on trumped up accusations about supposed weapons of mass destruction. And the US was, that very week, killing tens of thousands of innocent people in a "shock and awe' bombing campaign.

But we were then being told loud and clear by THE top government representative, our Liberal prime minister, "not to criticize the United States for attacking Iraq because this could be construed as supporting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

Jeff, or any other right-wing Liberal supporter browsing this supposedly "left wing" discussion group, does that sound like a good example of Canadian diplomatic support for the Iraq war?

There are many other examples but I figured it was a good place to start.

Perhaps we rabblers should not argue with Jeff or other right wingers, as that would just give comfort to George Bush.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 08 February 2008 02:42 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sigh.

It is very sad when disagreement with Richard Sanders causes one to get labeled as a right-winger.

But, since Richard was elected as High Priest of The Left the other day, in secret elections, I won't argue with his fatwa, since I have been involved in left since only eight years before he was born. What he says, goes.

As for Canada in Iraq, the role there does not bear serious comparison with the role in Afghanistan, whether measured by the number of Canadian dead (zero) the number of bullets fired (not 4 million like in Afghanistan, I bet), or any other measure.

Similarly, what Chretien said bears little relation to what Richard claimed in the article. But one has to be able to appreciate distinctions in order to understand that.

So far, I haven't seen much ability to do that here.

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 08 February 2008 03:10 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Jeff House is a right winger, then there is no hope left for the world.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 08 February 2008 03:42 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Webgear, you're missing the point. If babblers can't call someone even marginally to their right a neo-con; If Jeff House can't call someone even marginally to his left a Communist (with the big-C, mind); if everything can't be blamed on the moderators - then the terrorists have truly won.

In conclusion let me just say: 9/11.

[Edited because terrorists stole my spelling ability.]

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 February 2008 03:50 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
In conclusion let me just say: 9/11.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 08 February 2008 04:13 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mods, terrorists???? Point well taken, I suppose. Kill here, die there, I guess I see the difference. My major problem is that 9/11 was the date of the CIA coup in Chile and I'm unaware what that has to do with the invasions and occupations in Asia.

We are culpable.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 08 February 2008 04:53 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Coyote my statement was meant as a joke. I knew I should have added or a icon.

I can never figure out how someone can be labelled as a left or right winger in today’s world because of the number of issues and the different number positions a person can take on a position.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 09 February 2008 03:43 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff says he's been "involved in the left" since 8 years before I was born. Assuming he knows when I was born (it's in my rabble profile), that means he has been "involved in the left" since 1949, i.e., since (quite remarkably) he was three years old. (His year of birth is also in his rabble profile).

I'm curious to know what "left" groups he was "involved in" when he was a toddler back in 1949. Let us know Jeff, I really am interested.

As I have only recently (just yesterday) been decreed (by Jeff) to be "High Priest of the Left" (thanks man, where's my new outfit?), let me point out here (to all my fellow priest-parisheners), that I assumed Jeff was right wing because (in part) of his ferocious rants against people whom he accused of being "communists."

Usually, I've found that folks who use the word "communist" as a kind of swear word or epithet and hurl it with seemingly venomous hatred, are folks that adhere to a political philosophy that is somehow the opposite of communism, and to me that usually means they're right wing.

But I'm sure i could be wrong and will no doubt be corrected shortly.

The response Jeff received from other rabblers when he started foaming at the mouth about commies in our midst, led me to think that he's been at this game for some time and that at least some rabblers are getting a bit tired of his involvement in this supposed forum for Canada's left.

Again, I'm sure I'll soon be corrected.

Jeff's attacks against virtually all the points in my article exposing Canadian involvement in the Iraq War didn't help to endear him to me nor did it instil in me any sense that he is on the "left." Quite the contrary.

And I admit I also assumed that Jeff was right wing because of his fervent defence of the Liberal Party's totally hypocritical stance on the war in Iraq, i.e., they did as much as they could to support the war while simultaneously pretending to stand up in a principled way against it. That takes some careful tightrope walking, even for a Liberal government with a tremendous body of experience.

Why would Jeff, or anyone, run defence for the Liberal Party on their support for the Iraq War?

Everyone deserves a good defence and a good defence lawyer, even attempted murderers and Liberal Party warmongers, but hey, you wouldn't think they'd want a "leftie" to do the job, or would you? Actually, of course they'd want a "leftie" for the job, because they're trying desperately to pretend to be lefties themselves:

"Talk from the left, rule from the right".

"Campaign like you're a socialist,
run the country like you're a Tory."

"Support US wars, pretend you are against them."

But obviously, the Liberal Party is a right wing party. In so many ways its policies are virtually identical to the Conservative Party. (The system is called polyarchy.)

Some crucial evidence of the fact that Liberals are Tories too, can easily be found in the fact that over the decades both parties received millions of dollars annually from Canada's largest corporations. (I'm most familiar with their receipt of political donations from war-related industries which I tracked for 25 years.)

But anyway, i think now that i've really been sucked in here. I had been thinking that we should just ignore Jeff's redbaiting and his efforts to undermine the effort to expose how deeply ingrained canada truly is in the US warmachine. Surely we have more than enough work to do in our unceasing efforts to debunk the myth that Canada is a great promoter of world peace.

However, perhaps I'm all wrong about this being a waste of time and a distraction. This effort to convince Jeff that Canada is in fact complicit in the crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes being committed in Iraq, is an example the work I say we need to do. And it illustrates just how difficult our work is.

I have been saying all along that even the left and its activists have swallowed the myth about Canada being a world leader for peace. Jeff's reaction to may article is a perfect example of that.

Jeff is demonstrating loud and clear just how seriously he takes the Canada-as-peacemaker myth. He has absorbed this myth and it has become a core part of his cultural psyche. He is just like so many other Canadians on this score. And, he just doesn't want to let it go. It is so deeply ingrained in him now that he has to fight to preserve it.

Perhaps it is because he is comparing Canada to the US, a country that spends 50% of its total budget on war -- which totals to more than the rest of the world combined!

This peacekeeper myth that we have in Canada is a lens through which Canadians see themselves and through which the world sees us. Such myths are very hard to dispense with. Clearly, even the brutal facts are not enough.

Perhaps its even harder for someone who comes here from the US, someone who came here to avoid serving in an unjust war that killed millions.

So, how do we proceed? Namecalling isn't going to work.

So how does the left effectively deal with the infiltration of such all pervasive myths as this "peacemaking" one into our Canadian culture. And, more particularly, how do we deal with this cultural mythology that has ingrained itself into the consciousness of our own "left" movement?

I'm tempted to ask if there are any "information warfare" specialists in our number but that is adversarial. How do we deal with our allies, our comrads and friends when they reveal that they too have fallen for a confidence trick as massive as the myth that Canada is a world class peacemaker?

It's a serious question and requires a serious answer.

Now, all that aside, I'm dying to know what leftie group Jeff joined at age three.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 February 2008 05:23 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Jeff House is a right winger, then so am I.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 February 2008 05:33 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff house is right - Chrétien didn't send Canadian soldiers to Iraq.

Richard Sanders is right - Chrétien's Canada (and Martin's and Harper's) are hardly a shining example of staunch opposition to U.S. warmongering.

I'm not sure what is added to the debate by characterizing people as "right-wing" - or by people defending themselves against such characterizations.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 February 2008 06:17 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I'm not sure what is added to the debate by characterizing people as "right-wing" - or by people defending themselves against such characterizations.


I agree - I think this is ridiculous.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 09 February 2008 06:51 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Jeff house is right - Chrétien didn't send Canadian soldiers to Iraq.


what about the 1300 troops aboard our multi billion dollar frigates that escorted the US warships thru the Persian Gulf to the shores of Iraq so they could kill all those thousands of Iraqis during the shock and awe bombardment?

Are you saying Canadian Navy personnel aren't soldiers?

and what about Canada's war planners, and AWACs operators and other Canadian military personnel that helped the war?

and what about our troops leading the training centre that trains Iraqi military personnel to take front line positions in the war for the US?

Are none of these Canadian soldiers considered Canadain troops?

And what about the Canadian general who was the number two commander of the entire Iraq war for a year?

Is he somehow not a Canadian soldier?

Why would leftwingers deny that these Cdn soldiers were active in the war?

Why would you want to cover that up?

I don't get it. I really don't get it.

Shouldn't the left want to expose the hypocrisy of the Liberals on this score.

Canada was and is still involved in the war. Get used to it. It's a reality.

Canada is a major supporter of US wars, despite all the myths to the contrary.

Let's expose that myth, not try to deny it.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 February 2008 06:56 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
Why would leftwingers deny that these Cdn soldiers were active in the war?

Why would you want to cover that up?

I don't get it. I really don't get it.


Cover that up?

Let me explain this very clearly to you.

If Canada announced tomorrow that it was withdrawing all its military personnel from Afghanistan - forever - but would continue to provide helicopters or tanks or armament to the NATO "mission", I would celebrate.

I would NOT stop condemning the war against the Afghan people, nor would I stop condemning Canada's criminal complicity - but I would still crack out the champagne.

Would you, Richard?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 09 February 2008 07:01 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

I agree - I think this is ridiculous.

And I agree as well. Jeff House is not a right-winger, and it wastes everyone's time to pretend he is. Now, he has to realize that he wastes everyone's time as well with this truly pathetic red-hunt he likes to engage in.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 09 February 2008 07:37 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:

Are you saying Canadian Navy personnel aren't soldiers?


No they are not soldiers, they are sailors.

But I will not go off at a tangent.

Richard you bring up some good points however I do not agree with everything you say.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 09 February 2008 09:47 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

If Canada announced tomorrow that it was withdrawing all its military personnel from Afghanistan - forever - but would continue to provide helicopters or tanks or armament to the NATO "mission", I would celebrate.

I would NOT stop condemning the war against the Afghan people, nor would I stop condemning Canada's criminal complicity - but I would still crack out the champagne.

Would you, Richard?


I would be happy that that part of canada's collaboration was withdrawn, but I would reserve the champagne for Canada's complete withdrawal from the war.

And, I would still continue to oppose Canada's other contributions to the war, just as i would hope other opponents of the war would continue to oppose it.

My question to you is this:

Why would Canadians protest against Canada's multifarious role in the Iraq War, if they did not even know that Canada was involved?

They wouldn't protest. Nothing to protest right?

There are no protests against Canada's involvement in the Iraq war, not because Canada isn't involved but because people have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

I am just trying to show that Canada IS and has been involved in a major way from the start.

What is wrong with that? Why do i get such flack from the left for trying to expose that.

Please explain.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 February 2008 10:46 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
I would be happy that that part of canada's collaboration was withdrawn, but I would reserve the champagne for Canada's complete withdrawal from the war.

You're hard to please.

quote:
And, I would still continue to oppose Canada's other contributions to the war, just as i would hope other opponents of the war would continue to oppose it.

So would I. But if you don't appreciate the immensity of partial victories, you may never be around to celebrate the final one.

quote:
There are no protests against Canada's involvement in the Iraq war, not because Canada isn't involved but because people have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

You're mistaken. There are no protests over the Iraq war - period. In Jan-Feb 2003 there were huge protests. I participated in one that was reported as having 125,000 participants. The invasion had not even taken place, and there was no indication Canada might get involved. Convincing people now that Canada has been involved from the start is not going to magically recreate a movement which has (largely) disintegrated for all kinds of reasons - not least of which the complete absence of any political leadership in this country for movements of that nature.

quote:
I am just trying to show that Canada IS and has been involved in a major way from the start.

What is wrong with that? Why do i get such flack from the left for trying to expose that.


I didn't realize the "left" was giving you flak. There's nothing wrong with exposing Canadian involvement and complicity. I think it's an important contribution, and I appreciate your website. Just don't expect applause when you call people names just because they aren't quite as conscious of the issue as you are.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 09 February 2008 11:13 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure seems to me like I've been getting flak, but if you tell me that this is actually all a kind of generous support for my work, then okay, maybe i'm just not being grateful enough.

sorry, i'll try to do better at recognising my supporters in the future.

and by the way, i wasn't trying to "magically recreate a movement" (as you so generously claim), all i did was write a little article exposing Canada's many overlooked contributions to the war in Iraq....

(once again sorry that upset anyone on the left)

...and then when practically every word of my article came under attack by a redbaiting babbler who was throwing the word "communist" around like it was swear word and was simultaneous defending the Liberal Party's atrocious right-wing, pro-war record, I called him a rightwinger. (If it sings like a duck...)

How was I to know he was a leftwinger, everything he said here seemed to indicate the opposite.

I guess I suffered a temporary lapse of sanity. It wasn't premeditated or premedicated, i simply forgot that some of the left are wont to support the government's most heinous right wing actions.

I should have known better because I've been working for the past year trying to expose the Liberal government's support for the 2004 coup that overthrew Aristide. And that Cdn-backed coup has been backed by a whole bunch of "left wing" Cdn NGOs, funded of course generously by the Cdn govt.

So sorry that I didn't recognize leftwing support, it was so carefully disguised that i missed it completely.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 February 2008 03:08 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
If Canada announced tomorrow that it was withdrawing all its military personnel from Afghanistan - forever - but would continue to provide helicopters or tanks or armament to the NATO "mission", I would celebrate.
Celebrate??

Because instead of Afghans being killed and maimed by Canadian soldiers using Canadian armaments, the Afghans would thenceforth be killed and maimed by French (or Dutch, or US, etc.) soldiers using Canadian armaments?

Some people are much too easy to please.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 February 2008 03:24 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Celebrate??

Because instead of Afghans being killed and maimed by Canadian soldiers using Canadian armaments, the Afghans would thenceforth be killed and maimed by French (or Dutch, or US, etc.) soldiers using Canadian armaments?

Some people are much too easy to please.


Nobody is replacing the Canadians. Nobody is as stupid as we are.

And yes, I'm much too easy to please. Character flaw.

ETA: On a more serious note, we should fight for our troops and our armaments etc. to be withdrawn. I was just teasing Richard a bit, for going after jeff, who we all know likes to redbait.

Those who say "we have to fight for all foreigners to get out" are kidding themselves. The greatest contribution we can make is to get ours out. Only the French people, in league with the Afghan people, can get the French out. Etc.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 10 February 2008 06:35 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the discussion above Jeff belittles the various examples of contributions made by the Canadian government to US commission of mass murder in Iraq.

In law, this is called aided and abetting international crimes against peace and humanity.

It's a legal issue really.

One of the many examples which Jeff belittles is the Canadian government's granting of permission to US warplanes (fighters, bombers and transport planes) to fly warfighters, weapons and other war technologies through Canadian airspace and to refuel on their way both to and from the killing zone in Iraq.

Then Slumberjack piped in and agreed with Jeff saying:

"I'd seriously doubt it takes a northern flight plan through Canada to refuel planes departing the US on their way to Iraq."

Anyone who has flown to Europe from Canada and looked down and seen Greenland's vast icesheets below can understand why it is that US warplanes want to take a shortcut over Canada to get to the killing zone in Iraq, especially if they are stopping in Ireland and/or the UK on the way.

One such warplane was smashed up by war resisters at a refuelling stop at an airport in Ireland. They didn't run away because they wanted to stand up against war crimes in the court. When they came to trial the jury found them not guilty because they determined that this war plane was on its way to commit a horrendous crime in Iraq.

I would hope that my fellow activists on the left would celebrate this victory with a glass of their favourite drink).

Bravo to those brave Irish antiwar activists! I wish some folks in Canada had taken such an action. I would have called them antiwar heroes.

Would Jeff defend such criminals in court? Perhaps he would lambast them for drawing attention to our government's insignificant contribution to the illegal mass slaughter in Iraq.

Now, considering that hundreds of such US military aircraft have probably flown thousands of kms over Canadian airspace, its not hard to imagine that the number of airmiles that the US military has racked up on their flights over Canada, on their way to committing war crimes in Iraq, is pretty high. Perhaps in total they've even racked up millions of Canadian airmiles by now.

Now this is not significant say Jeff, Slumberjack and other leftwing (?) naysayers.

I asked my son about this. He's almost four. I asked in a round about way mind you because he's not old enough yet to psychologically deal with the horrors of mass murder, with the image of blood and gore flying everywhere, and the sound of kids screaming because their arms and legs have been blown off by cluster bombs, etc etc, after these war planes have been allowed to peacefully fly over friendly Canadian airspace. (Friendly to the US, not to the screaming Iraqi victims of those US warplanes.)

(Is this too dramatic? Are people to squeemish with this description? As adults we might do well to imagine the horrific crimes that our government is aiding and abetting, with our consent and our tax dollars. Perhaps that way we'll make more of an effort to stop it.)

Anyway, here's how our conversation went.

Me: If a bully who lives across the street from us asked us if he could cut through our yard to take a short cut so he could go beat up a kid that lives somewhere else, what would you say to him.

Arthur: No!

Me: What should we do?

Arthur: We could close the gate.

Me: Now what if he wanted to take a big stick from our yard and go over to that other little boys place to beat him up. What would you say?

Arthur: I'd say no!

The conversation continued and Arthur made it clear that he thought that we should "not help the bully."

Now, imagine if you will what the US reaction would be if Canada said no. What if we closed the gate and actually tried to stop them from carrying out these overflights.

What if we had said no to all of the other examples of aiding and abetting America's international crimes that I elucidated.

A government that would stand up for peace and against war would never be allowed to take power in the first place. Such parties and movements that would support such parties would be disrupted, undermined anmd belittled.

If somehow such a government were to take power in Canada it would be quickly and covertly be overthrown out by the US. If you don't believe me look at what happened to Dief in 1963 after he refused to allow the US to base nuclear weapons in Canada.

US overthrows Canadian government

Plot made in the US ousts Canadian government

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 February 2008 06:58 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We haven't had a Canadian government in Ottawa for a long time. Our response to the USSA's threatening, bombing and invading sovereign countries is to hand them massive, simply massive amounts of our greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels hydroelectric power, aye-aye Uncle Sam!! One stern word from Ottawa and the shadow gov does whatever they want to abroad and with Ottawa's cooperation. Aye-aye!!!
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 10 February 2008 11:09 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Those who say "we have to fight for all foreigners to get out" are kidding themselves.
Quote of the week.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 February 2008 11:17 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I too dislike the far-too-pro-Bush proclivities of the present government of Canada.

Nonetheless, I am able to make a distinction between sending several thousand soldiers to a war, as in Afghanistan,taking significant casualties, on the one hand, and allowing US planes to fly over Canada, with an eventual destination in Iraq on the other hand.

Richard thinks that Canada "contributes" to the Iraq war in some way, and that is no doubt true, just as Richard contributes to global warming.

But I still see a difference between what Richard does and what a steel mill does, and I attribute fault proportionately.

Richard's legal analysis is deficient, also.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 February 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is there such a thing as being an accomplice to murder and being an innocent bystander at the same time?

Semi-pregnant?

The way I look at it, we're either in or we're out. And Canada is definitely in for a share of imperialist adventures and propping up a vicious empire with our number one in the world exports of energy and fossil fuels to the USSA without any strings attached.

Meanwhile Ottawa has been fully agreeable to the USSA's genocidal, medieval sieges of other countries for perpetrating far less than something like shock and awe gangsterism in the Middle East.

eta: this is in addition to Canada's off the books exports of high technology products and devices to the Pentagon and military-industrial complex. And now Canadians are there in Afghanistan doing the same things we condemned the Soviets for doing, and in some cases even worse when compliance to torture is factored in.

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 10 February 2008 11:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Those who say "we have to fight for all foreigners to get out" are kidding themselves.

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Quote of the week.


You mean, out-of-context quote of the week?

Tell ya what, M. I'll fight for Canada to withdraw, you fight for the Dutch to get out.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 10 February 2008 11:50 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Richard, you seem to be overly concerned with any challenge whatsoever to every detailed facet of the information you provided. Other points of view that have been presented may come from some other level of knowledge surrounding the issue. Let us agree at least that there is far more cooperation going on than what the public are being led to believe.

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 10 February 2008 12:17 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
Then Slumberjack piped in and agreed with Jeff saying:
"I'd seriously doubt it takes a northern flight plan through Canada to refuel planes departing the US on their way to Iraq."

Anyone who pipes will tell you it is far more economical.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 February 2008 12:27 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there such a thing as being an accomplice to murder and being an innocent bystander at the same time?
Semi-pregnant?

The way I look at it, we're either in or we're out.


So, if Japan sends one soldier to Iraq, and she is unarmed, we have to say "They're in", because your categories are so lacking in nuance.

Your legal analogies are really quite silly,
and the "semi-pregnant" analogy might convince a nine year old. But in the real world, most things are not determined by yes/no polarities.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 10 February 2008 12:27 PM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
Let us agree at least that there is far more cooperation going on than what the public are being led to believe.

We can do better than that. Let's take it a step closer to reality and agree that:

The Canadian government has been a willing accomplice to mass murder from the very start of the 2003 Iraq War and some within Canada's "left" are still trying to cover up this highly unpopular fact.


For his contribution, Canada's Governor General gave him a Cross to pin on his chest.

When making the announcement that they had awarded him with this high Canadian honour, the office of the Governor-General said Natynczyk played a:

“pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution…to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and… brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.”

Unfortunately, some people in Canada still don't want to give "credit" where "credit" is due.

Some even try to pretend that Canada's commitment of about 1400 military personnel to aid and abet the Iraq war was comparable to a hypothetical female Japanese soldier sent to Iraq without a weapon.

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 10 February 2008 12:46 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:

We can do better than that. Let's take it a step closer to reality and agree that:


This was acknowledged as true previously in this thread. BTW, he presents much younger in person, but more brutal than depicted.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 February 2008 01:16 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, that's a great picture. And a picture, with headline, is so convincing, even when one produces it oneself!

Amazing, too, that a mere Brigadier General, who normally commands 5000 soldiers, would suddenly vault over all of the US Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals, and so on, to be SECOND IN COMMAND!

But, if one actually goes beyond the photo, it turns out that this fellow is not involved in the Multi-National Corps, at all.

He is involved in the Multi National FORCE, which does things like train Iraqi Police.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Combined_Joint_Task_Force_7

I'd rather not have even a single Canadian helping them train Iraqi police, but that is a reconstruction task, not a directly military one.

And I am not sure where Richard gets the number 1400 for Canadian troops in Iraq, since the US Central Command doesn't list any.

http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/index.html


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 10 February 2008 02:43 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Amazing, too, that a mere Brigadier General, who normally commands 5000 soldiers, would suddenly vault over all of the US Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals, and so on, to be SECOND IN COMMAND!

Those are a Major-General's shoulder boards. BGen has the one leaf.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 10 February 2008 05:11 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 10 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 10 February 2008 06:10 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess he got his Meritorious Service Cross under false pretences:
quote:
MGen Natynczyk is recognized for his outstanding leadership and professionalism while deployed as Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. From January 2004 to January 2005, MGen Natynczyk led the Corps' 10 separate brigades, consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers stationed throughout the Iraq Theatre of Operations. He also oversaw planning and execution of all Corps level combat support and combat service support operations. His pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 11 February 2008 02:19 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funny how Jeff and Slumberjack can make it sound as if I made the whole thing up.

Did I take Natynczyk's photo too? perhaps doctoring it with photoshop. No, not my job.

Did I make up the text from the office of the Gov. General? Perhaps they are now hiring antiwar activists to write their media releases. Nope I'll keep my day job.

Did I change his rank too? Nope, that's beyond my control, sorry.

But perhaps the Gov. Gen's office got it all wrong and perhaps Jeff is more in touch with military affairs than is that high office? They said Natynczyk was:

"deployed as Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM."

Now Jeff, isn't a "Deputy Commanding General" the guy usually standing right next to the "Commanding General"? In other words he's the #2 guy, right?

Did I change the name of the outfit that Natynczyk helped command calling it a Corps instead of a Force? No Jeff you were wrong on that too. Will it never end?

I said about 1400 personnel were involved in the Iraq war because as I said earlier there were 1300 Canadian military personnel aboard our multi-billion dollar frigates, plus there were the other personnel including 3 dozen ground troops, plus our AWACs technicians, plus our war planners, plus our CC-130 crews, and plus our military trainers, and perhaps others we'll never know.

Canadian frigates escorted US warships through the Persian Gulf. The role of these Canadian ships was to protect US warships. We put them "safely" into place so that they could "safely" shock and awe the people of Iraq back to the stone age with pretty fireworks (and bombs and missiles).

Nevermind that thousands of innocent people were snuffed out. Slumberjack told us earlier that Canada's frigates "did not form part of naval task forces conducting offensive operations during the war." Right, there's nothing offensive about protecting the most offensive naval force in the world so that it can kill thousands of innocent people.

Just like during the 1991 Iraq war when Cdn fighter planes escorted B-52 bombers so that they could "safely" drop bombs on Iraqi targets. Remember the kind of Iraqi targets the US was bombing? They included civilian infrastructure essential to health, like sewage treatment plants, water purification facilities, power stations. The germ warfare that was unleashed next was absolutley horrendous! Geneva conventions be damned.

Now there's a clever PR line that Canada's military spins out to defuse such explosive truths. They don't want Canadians to be exposed to the facts about Canada's role in the 2003 Iraq war because that would make Canada look guilty of international crimes, and we weren't involved in that bad war at all remember?

So here's the lie. It's a woozy.

Canadian ships weren't helping fight the war against Iraq. No, not at al. What they were doing in the Persain Gulf at that time was merely fighting the war against terrorists in Afghanistan. Yeah that's it!

This is odd because most of us didn't know that the Taliban, hiding in their caves a thousand miles from the coast, were commanding a dangerous fleet of warships or perhaps submarines (did they get those from the CIA when they were fighting those evil commies?), or maybe those nasty Taliban were threatening to use rowboats that could attack the US fleet on its way to Iraq.

Now, even if Taliban canoes did attack US warships (which they didn't) that wouldn't be terrorism. Terrorism is killing civilians, not killing military personnel, that's usually called war.

Terrorism is what the US warships helped do against tens of thousands (okay maybe hundreds of thousands) of innocent people in Iraq.

So does this mean Canada was part of a terrorist operation? Heck no, our warships in the Gulf escorting US warships during the Iraq war were just helping to protect the women of Afghanistan. That's what our allies (the Northern Alliance warlords) are all about, right?)

Canadian PR flaks tried this same lie to explain the use of Canadian CC-130 transport planes:

As Sumberjack dutifully recounts:
"Canadian military spokesperson, Maj. Lynn Chaloux, denied that the Canadian CC-130s were used in the Iraq war, saying “We supported Enduring Freedom, the war on terrorism, not Iraqi Freedom, the war in Iraq.”

And, as we all know "Canadian military spokesperson(s)" wouldn't tell a fib, unlike Canadian antiwar activists, who must be quelled at their every step (by their friends on the "left").

It seems that some Canadians feel very attached to the beautiful myth that Canada wasn't involved in the Iraq that began in 2003. These lefties don't want any cracks to appear in that heavenly myth. Such folks run defense on behalf of the Canadian military and the government to help them cover up what really happened. Seems they want to help the officials to keep the wool firmly in place over simple Canadians' eyes.

Why is that anyhow?

I only wish that such folks didn't get mad at me for breaking the sad news to them about Canada's role in terrorist wars. It's not my fault Canada is involved in this war.

It is a precious myth that Canada's hands are lily white on this. But eventually, let's hope, that myth will come crashing down, at least within the peace movement, where it should never have had a chance to stand for so long. I hope I can play just a small role in the collapse of that myth. However, there are those who don't wish me any luck in that endevour.

You'd think the left and the peace movement would be more supportive of such meagre efforts as mine to expose the govt's transparent propaganda.

Now, I don't expect any apologies from my friendly critics, even though its clear they've wrongly accused me of all sorts or errors. Apparently this is the kind of support and encouragment for my research that I can expect from some folks who self-identify as being on the "left."

Let's end this with some humour.

But the children of Iraq aren't laughing.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 11 February 2008 03:27 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
I said about 1400 personnel were involved in the Iraq war because as I said earlier there were 1300 Canadian military personnel aboard our multi-billion dollar frigates, plus there were the other personnel including 3 dozen ground troops, plus our AWACs technicians, plus our war planners, plus our CC-130 crews, and plus our military trainers, and perhaps others we'll never know.[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]

The purpose of any deployments are widely available from open sources. It stands to reason then that 1400 personnel are still awaiting the distribution of their Iraqi Freedom medals for having participated, as you say. Knowing some of the people who were deployed at the time to operate or support the sea and air platforms you mentioned, including friends and close relatives, it would come as a startling revelation to them that what they were told about their mission was actually an elaborate and deceptive sham to hoodwink not ony them, but the entire nation. Additionally, you may understand that the same individuals here that were skeptical to say the least, when Powell presented his photos to the UN as undeniable proof of the existance of an Iraqi chemical weapons program, would not be quickly swayed by pictures that could have been taken at any other time of naval cooperation. Unless you have more information beyond your say so, and a few glossy's, I'd just as soon choose to believe what is undeniable in some of the content you offered, while withholding agreement on other points. It does not change the bottom line of your argument, that indeed a level of cooperation actually took place, however credible proof of the true extent has not been made public.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 11 February 2008 07:18 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

The purpose of any deployments are widely available from open sources. It stands to reason then that 1400 personnel are still awaiting the distribution of their Iraqi Freedom medals for having participated, as you say. .... Unless you have more information beyond your say so, and a few glossy's, I'd just as soon choose to believe what is undeniable in some of the content you offered, while withholding agreement on other points. It does not change the bottom line of your argument, that indeed a level of cooperation actually took place, however credible proof of the true extent has not been made public.


Glad you are open to learning about this. Consider the following information which is no doubt news to you and perhaps to some of the Canadian sailors who wondered why they were parked offshore Kuwait protecting US aircraft carriers that were bombing the hell out of Iraq.

Frank P. Harvey, in his book "American Multilateralism in Iraq" notes in the 2003 Iraq war, Canadian ships operated right up to the 29th parallel, which is the southernmost tip of Kuwait.

He explains that 4 Canadian frigates took part in Task Force 151, that included 20 warships from 6 countries.

And, not only that, this is the good part:

Canada led Task Force 151.

So what were we doing there leading this Task Force, fighting Taliban? No.

Here's the answer:

"The ships were charged with helping to protect US aircraft carriers...so they were in a position to lend direct assistance to coalition forces in transit to or engaged in operations against Iraq."

This is what Cda's Defence Minister at the time, John McCallum called "double-hatting".

That's a clever way of saying that our ships and sailors were doing two things at once. They were:

(1) fighting the war against Terror, and
(2) fighting the Iraq War.

Harvey's book also documents that "roughly 2 to 3 flights a day and about a thousand troops" came through Gander NF aboard US warplanes during the Iraq war.

Read Harvey's book online here

Now here's an article that touches on this matter.

No Harbour for War
Views: Sharing the Burdens of Empire: Canadian Participation in War Crimes in Iraq
By JON ELMER*

HALIFAX (20 March 2003) -- Since the "official" war will surely begin before this issue is off the newsstands, outlining the terror and mayhem of "shock and awe" bombing raids in a city the size of Paris is perhaps an unhelpful conjecture: it will be massive, it will be brutal and it will be deadly -- "liberation" as defined by the American Empire always is.
...
Setting aside the wicked sanctions regime that Canadian warships have been enforcing on the people of Iraq for the past 12 years -- which has killed more than one million people denied basic medicines -- our involvement in this war is as recent as the arrival of the HMCS Iroquois in the Persian Gulf.

The HMCS Iroquois, with its ill-fated Sea King helicopter, was deployed from Halifax to "hunt terrorists" under the auspices of Operation Apollo (aka Operation Enduring Freedom), but according to Defence Minister John McCallum the ship is understood to be "double-hatting" by providing escort services for the billion-dollar U.S. aircraft carriers. "Double-hatting"?
The Iroquois will be using its anti-aircraft and anti-submarine surveillance to protect the enormous American aircraft carriers whose jets will relentlessly pound Baghdad with Hellfire missiles, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium-tipped warheads. The Iroquois will also be using Canadian taxpayer dollars to protect "vital oil shipping routes" out of the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. In a war for oil, that is no small assignment -- the multinational oil-tankers are clearly a symbolic target for attack.

Significantly, the Canadian Forces will not be patrolling the Arabian Sea as they were during the war in Afghanistan. Instead, according to Time Magazine, our ships will be deploying deeper into the Persian Gulf than ever before -- including the 1991 Gulf massacre. Meanwhile, Canadian Forces are -- something like the journalists in military fatigues -- "embedded" at the United States military Central Command in Doha, Qatar, sitting behind those ever-so important computer terminals and coordinating the destruction of Iraq as if it were a consequence-free video game.

It is uncontroversial that Canadian Forces are in Iraq -- they will be taking part in the massacre of thousands of innocent civilians and likely doing it without ever even seeing a combatant. Such are the rules of engagement in the grossly asymmetrical pseudo-warfare of the 21st century.

In short, Canada is actively participating in a war of aggression that clearly qualifies as a crime against peace and a violation of international law. We are being lied to, and it is time to take that message to the streets -- while war is being waged in our name, there will be no "business as usual."

* At the time of writing, Jon Elmer was a senior columnist at the Dalhousie Gazette at Dalhousie University, Halifax. (Dalhousie Gazette, March 20, 2003).

Read Elmer's article online

Now, Harvey mentioned that there were 4 frigates in Task Force 151. So besides the HMCS Iroquois, mentioned above by Elmer, we know that the HMCS Winnipeg, Regina and Fredericton were also "integrated into coalition" forces in the region during the initial assault on Iraq in March 2003. Here's a quote from a military source to back that up. Although it doesn't mention their "double-hatting" role it gets into some more details of when they were there and what they were doing:

"Canada was the first coalition nation after the U.S. to deploy a naval task group into the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility, which stretches from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia. At its peak in January 2002, the Canadian Naval Task Group comprised six warships and about 1,500 Navy personnel.

Chronology of Ship Deployments

[I edited out long list of deployments before 2003 Iraq war]

September 9, 2002–April 2, 2003:
HMCS Montreal
September 16, 2002–April 7, 2003:
HMCS Winnipeg
February 2–May 19, 2003:
HMCS Regina
February 24–July 5, 2003:
HMCS Iroquois
March 5–Aug 4, 2003:
HMCS Fredericton
August 1, 2003-present:
HMCS Calgary

Changes of Command
February 7, 2003–June 15, 2003: Commodore Roger Girouard commanded Coalition Task Force 151.

Key Operational Focuses
The Canadian ships deployed on Op APOLLO participate in force-protection operations, fleet-support operations, leadership interdiction operations, and maritime interdiction operations. On arrival in the north Arabian Sea, they are integrated into a coalition formation.

Force-protection operations: Heavily armed, manoeuvrable warships such as Canada’s destroyers and frigates provide defensive capabilities to the more vulnerable specialized vessels in the multinational coalition fleet.

Fleet-support operations: The replenishment ships HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur have both cruised the Arabian Gulf and the Arabian Sea at different times to replenish ships of the coalition fleet at sea. Replenishment ships are crucial to sustaining coalition naval operations; as well as food and essential materiel such as fuel, ammunition and replacement parts, they provide the other ships of the fleet with specialized services such as health care and engineering expertise. During their time in theatre, HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur conducted more than 200 replenishment at sea (RAS) operations."
More about Cdn Frigates in Persian Gulf in March 2003

So, in future, besides drawing attention to Canadian frigate's role in "Force-protection" for US aircraft carriers that launched the shock and awe massacres in Iraq, I will now also mention Canada's role in "Fleet-support". That too is important.

Most important though is the fact that Canadian ships helped protect US warships (including aircraft carriers) and that they operated right up to the Kuwait coast from whence the US launched their airwar against thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Or, perhaps what's most important is that a smiling Canadian Comdr. Girouard led the Task Force.

Or perhaps that four of our multi-billion dollars warships, with all the sailors that entails, were deeply "integrated" in this one aspect of the US-led war against Iraq

Bravo Canada! Some on the "left" are still proudly behind you in this important work! And, no doubt, they will continue to doubt Canada's very significant role in waging that illegal war which was a terrible crime against peace and humanity.

Are their any lawyers in our midst who might help with a lawsuit or something to hold the Liberal gov't of the day responsible for these crimes, or at least to draw attention to these crimes?

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 February 2008 08:11 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You'd think the left and the peace movement would be more supportive of such meagre efforts as mine to expose the govt's transparent propaganda.

Sorry, but your writing doesn't differentiate between Canada in Iraq and Canada in Afghanistan, because of your failure to weigh evidence carefully.

In your scheme of things, Canada's refusal of participation in the "Coalition of the Willing" to invade Iraq becomes a minor detail.

So the fact that no Canadian soldier has died there, or been wounded, has zero importance to your analysis, and in fact was left out of your article entirely. all the while you are talking about "Canada's Secret War".

As for being supportive, as you request, maybe the best way would be for you to accept criticism in a democratic spirit, rather than trying to place a fatwa on me because I weigh the issues differently than you do.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 February 2008 08:18 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find myself - even after reading it twice - in agreement with jeff's last post.

[Noting the time and date...]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 11 February 2008 08:26 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am torn on this issue, everyone has made some good points overall. I find myself re-reading and re-thinking my points on this topic. I am continuing to change and re-change my point of view.

Thank you for such an interesting thread.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 11 February 2008 09:15 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, it appears that no effort then needs to be expended by those who adhere to the myth that "Canada said NO to the Iraq War."

No need to explain what McCallum called "double-hatting"?

No attempt is needed to even try to explain away why Canada was escorting US aircraft carriers to the waters just south of Kuwait during the bombardment of Iraq.

And no effort is required to square any of the many other facts that I have presented with the baseless belief that Canada wasn't involved, or that Canada's involvement was so insignificant that we should all just forget about it.

In short, the mere evidence of Canada's deep complicity in the 2003 Iraq war is not enough to convince some folks.

This demonstrates my point that the myth of Canada the great peace promoter is incredibly powerful.

This mythology survives in people's minds even when clear evidence contradicting it is exposed in plain site for easy verification.

It is akin to a deeply held religious belief. It requires faith. Facts should not get in the way of such political faith. Beware to those who try to expose the myth.

Since it now appears hopeless to convince certain people who are blinded by this myth, I am tempted to give up.

However, perhaps I'll try once again to break through the faith barrier by using my own peculiar mixture of facts and sarcasm.

So, raise your hand anybody who still says Canada did NOT join the Iraq War?

Some of you may still believe that Canada’s hands are clean.

Perhaps you’re embarrassed, perhaps its peer pressure, perhaps you were asleep during this presentation or did not read the material I presented here proving Canada's role in the 2003 Iraq War.

I understand that sometimes people just don’t want to admit things….

For example, as Colin Powell is pointing out here, Canada is NOT on the US list of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" (CW).

That’s the group Cellucci mentioned when he said Canada was contributing MORE to the war than “most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts.”

So, did the US just forget to mention us? NO!

As Colin Powell explained in early 2003, there were:
“15 other nations…who did not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

So then Canada DID say “NO” to the U.S.!!

The U.S. asked if Canada wanted to be acknowledged, and Canada gave a resounding

“NO!”

Does our secret coalition have a name?

YES!

This coalition is what I call the CW (HUSH) …

Now, can I tell you a secret?

The leading light in this hush-hush coalition of the unwilling to be seen helping is…

Drum roll please…

Okay, you don’t have to be an Einstein to get this one, the answer is….

Yes, Canada!

So the next time some proud Canadian tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq war, just remind them of Mark Twain's immortal words.


The above images are from an online SLIDE SHOW

Click above to watch it all. Enjoy.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 11 February 2008 09:40 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This whole exchange is surreal.

In addition to the clear description of Natynczyk'a activities (posted by Spector above) which brought him the Meritorious Service Cross, we have this from the National Defence bio:
"LGen Natynczyk attended the U.S. Army War College and was subsequently appointed Deputy Commanding General, III Corps and Fort Hood. In January 2004, he deployed with III Corps to Baghdad, Iraq, serving first as the Deputy Director of Strategy, Policy and Plans and subsequently as the Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps (Iraq).

And yet we get stuff like:

quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[QB]Gee, that's a great picture. And a picture, with headline, is so convincing, even when one produces it oneself!

Amazing, too, that a mere Brigadier General, who normally commands 5000 soldiers, would suddenly vault over all of the US Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals, and so on, to be SECOND IN COMMAND!

But, if one actually goes beyond the photo, it turns out that this fellow is not involved in the Multi-National Corps, at all.

He is involved in the Multi National FORCE, which does things like train Iraqi Police.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Combined_Joint_Task_Force_7

I'd rather not have even a single Canadian helping them train Iraqi police, but that is a reconstruction task, not a directly military one....



It's mindboggling that Jeff would (without ever answering my previous direct query to him) make statements that are incredible and back them by a link that directly refutes his own claims. It's hard to imagine a reason for posting such a link.

Clearly Canada was and *IS* deeply involved in an Iraq combat role and there is not a word on Jeff's link about "training police" (whether or not they add that service to their main mission).
From Jeff's SourceWatch Link:

"Combined Joint Task Force 7


"The stated mission of Combined Joint Task Force 7 CJTF-7 is to conduct "offensive operations to defeat remaining noncompliant forces and neutralize destabilizing influences in the Area of Operations (AO) to create a secure environment in direct support of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Concurrently, [the Task Force] conducts stability operations which support the establishment of government and economic development to set the conditions for a transfer of operations to designated follow on military or civilian authorities."

May 2004, the direct successors to CJTF-7 are: Multi-National Corps-Iraq,
Multi-National Force-Iraq

Multi-National Corps-Iraq---Mission:
"Multi-National Corps-Iraq conducts offensive operations to defeat remaining non-compliant forces and neutralize destabilizing influences in Iraq in order to create a secure environment. Concurrently, conducts stability operations to support the establishment of government, the restoration of essential services, and economic development in order to set the conditions for a transfer of sovereignty and operations to designated follow-on authorities."

Multi-National Force-Iraq---Mission:
"Multi-National Force-Iraq conducts offensive operations to defeat remaining non-compliant forces and neutralize destabilizing influences in Iraq in order to create a secure environment. Multi-National Force - Iraq organizes, trains, equips, mentors, and certifies credible and capable Iraqi security forces in order to transition responsibility for security from coalition forces to Iraqi forces. Concurrently, conducts stability operations to support the establishment of government, the restoration of essential services, and economic development in order to set the conditions for a transfer of sovereignty to designated follow-on authorities."


And...from the Multi-National Corps-Iraq own Website (not terribly up to date):
"Canadian Maj. Gen. Peter Devlin
...Maj. Gen. Devlin became the Multi-National Force-Iraq Deputy Command General (Canada) December 14, 2006."

And...most recently, from the ignored newswire story (I posted earlier in the thread) there is Brigadier-General Nicolas Matern:

POLITICS: Canadian General Takes Senior Command Role in Iraq
By Jon Elmer and Anthony Fenton

VANCOUVER, Jan 23 (IPS) - Despite the government's official position abstaining from combat in Iraq, Canada has dispatched yet another top general to the command group overseeing day-to-day operations for the U.S.-led occupation and counterinsurgency war.

Brigadier-General Nicolas Matern, a Special Forces officer and former commander of Canada's elite counter-terrorism unit, will serve as deputy to Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III, incoming commander of the 170,000-strong Multi National Corps-Iraq beginning in mid-February.

Matern is the third Canadian general to serve in the command group of Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of an exchange programme that places Canadian Forces officers in leadership positions in the U.S. military. His deployment is part of a three-year post with the U.S. Army's 18th Airborne Corps, based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Officials at Fort Bragg confirmed that Matern has already been deployed to Iraq, though no official statement has been made by Canadian officials.
...To this end, Matern's Special Forces background is seen as an asset. "He comes in with a unique set of skills," Col. Bill Buckner of the 18th Airborne told the Ottawa Citizen. "We're the home of the airborne and the special operating forces, so he fits in very nicely to this warrior ethos we have here."..."Canadian General takes Senior Command Role in Iraq

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 February 2008 10:56 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was a dirty job, and our colonial administrators in Ottawa were willing patsies, even if Canadians didn't want to believe it. Aye-aye, Uncle.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 February 2008 11:50 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
This whole exchange is surreal....

It's mindboggling that Jeff would (without ever answering my previous direct query to him) make statements that are incredible and back them by a link that directly refutes his own claims. It's hard to imagine a reason for posting such a link.

So I take it you are reluctant to sign on to the rapidly-growing list of endorsers for Jeff's credentials as a bona fide leftist? Hey - go ahead, sign on. Don't let the facts get in your way.
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
If Jeff House is a right winger, then there is no hope left for the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
If Jeff House is a right winger, then so am I.
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Jeff House is not a right-winger, and it wastes everyone's time to pretend he is.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I find myself - even after reading it twice - in agreement with jeff's last post.

And of course, let's not forget Bob Rae.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 11 February 2008 12:37 PM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's more about the new Canadian on the block in Baghdad.

Ex-JTF2 commander takes leading role in Iraq:
Seasoned Canadian general on exchange to co-ordinate coalition forces
By David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen, January 19, 2008

A former commander of the Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 counter-terrorism unit is in Iraq helping U.S. forces and preparing to co-ordinate coalition units in the war-torn country.

Canadian Forces Brig.-Gen. Nicolas Matern recently arrived in Baghdad as part of the first wave of soldiers and officers from the U.S. army's 18th Airborne Corps from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

He is assigned as a senior officer in the Iraq Multi-National Corps which consists of roughly 130,000 troops, mainly from the U.S. and Britain, but with smaller contingents from more than 20 other nations.

The general, originally from Montreal, is attached to the airborne unit as part of an exchange program.

"He was brought in to be the deputy commanding general for the 18th Airborne Corps specifically to address the coalition aspect of our deployment," to Iraq, said U.S. Col. Bill Buckner, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps.

"Part of his battlefield circulation will be going and visiting those other countries and their soldiers and making sure they're getting the things they need, the support they need and making sure they are integrated into our operations."

Brig.-Gen. Matern will report to U.S. Lt.-Gen. Lloyd Austin III and his involvement in the Iraq war was recently highlighted by news media in North Carolina as an example of coalition efforts in the country.

"The Multi-National Corps-Iraq is indeed a multinational corps," Lt.-Gen. Austin told the Fayetteville Observer. "It is staffed by members of all of our (armed) services and coalition members."

The role of Canadian soldiers in the Iraq war has not been widely publicized by the Defence Department or the government. Defence officials did not respond to a request for information on Brig.-Gen. Matern.

But a number of high-ranking Canadian officers have been involved in helping direct operations in the Iraq conflict.

In 2004, Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, then a major-general, served as deputy commander of the Multi-National Corps during operation Iraqi Freedom. At the time, he was in charge of 35,000 soldiers. Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk oversaw the planning and execution of all multi-national corps-level combat support operations.

For his service in Iraq, Governor General Michaëlle Jean, presented him with the Meritorious Service Cross. At the time, the press release noted that Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk's pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations "resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada."

Canadian Maj.-Gen. Peter Devlin was also recently a deputy commander in the Multi-National Corps.

Other Canadian soldiers have served in front-line positions. In May 2003, a Canadian Forces exchange officer was wounded after a grenade exploded and hit the convoy he was travelling in near Baghdad airport. At the time, there were 16 Canadian military members serving on exchange programs with various foreign forces involved in the Iraq war.

Brig.-Gen. Matern, who moved to Fort Bragg last summer to take up his new position as a deputy commanding general in the 18th Airborne Corps, is a seasoned special operations officer who served with Canadian special forces in Afghanistan. According to his biography, besides commanding JTF2, he recently finished an appointment as deputy commander of the Ottawa-based Canadian Special Operations Forces Command.

Col. Buckner said Brig.-Gen. Matern's special operations experience, in addition to his other service in the army, fits in well with the U.S. unit. "He comes in with a unique set of skills," said Col. Buckner. "We're the 18th Airborne Corps, we're the home of the airborne and the special operating forces, so he fits in very nicely to this warrior ethos we have here. He's going to do a great job."

The general is the first Canadian to serve as a deputy commanding general with the 18 Airborne Corps. But such exchange positions are seen by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier as key to maintaining links with the Canadian military's closest ally.

[END]


This article says Matern will serve as
"senior officer in the Iraq Multi-National Corps which consists of roughly 130,000 troops."

However, the other article cited by contrarianna (by Elmer and Fenton) says Matern will be

"deputy to Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III, incoming commander of the 170,000-strong Multi National Corps-Iraq beginning in mid-February."

So will Matern be the deputy commander of 170,000 troops or a mere 130,000 troops.

In either case it looks as though he's not selling girl guide cookies to help the poor starving kids of Iraq.

Time perhaps we proud Canuck's cracked open the champagne to celebrate Canada's non-involvement in this horrible war.

Being honest about Canada's involvement in this war (and others) reminds me of something once said in Parliament about Canadian Forces personnel serving in Iraq.

Gordon O'Connor, a former "defence" industry lobbyist, who was then the Conservative "Defence" critic (and who later became the Conservative "Defence" Minister) was getting angry at Liberals because they were pretending that Canada wasn't involved in Iraq.

Canadian military forces in Iraq have indeed been “operating at the *highest* level of command.”

The U.S. government told Canada to jump and the Liberals and Conservatives dutifully said “How high?”


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 February 2008 02:08 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Ottawa Citizen cut the last two paragraphs of the article that appeared in this online version:
quote:
Matern was one of the first from the 18th Airborne Corps to be sent to Iraq in preparation for the deployment of around 900 soldiers from Fort Bragg.

Buckner said while Matern's main focus is on coalition forces, he could be called upon to do a variety of tasks. "He is fully integrated into everything we do," said Buckner. "He attends all of our planning sessions, our plans and operations briefings, all of our commander's staff meetings."
(emphasis added)


Note that Matern is the No. 2 man in the 18th Airborne Corps, and not necessarily of the Multi-National Corps, of which the 18th Airborne is a part. A recent AP story suggests that the 18th Airborne Corps participation in the Multi-National Corps is to be around 900 troops, which is in line with the figure I quoted above:
quote:
The 18th Airborne Corps headquarters staff and support units will spend the next 15 months in charge of the Multi-National Forces (sic) in the Middle East. In all, more than 900 soldiers are to be deployed.

They've been practicing for months.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 February 2008 02:22 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
The U.S. government told Canada to jump and the Liberals and Conservatives dutifully said “How high?”

Well, if you're documenting complicity, why leave the NDP out?

Like Audrey McLaughlin's stint in Baghdad after the invasion working for the "National Democracy Institute".

Or Leslie Campbell (her former chief of staff - and he also worked for Gary Doer) now working as Senior Associate for Strategy, and Regional Director for NDI in the Middle East and North Africa...

And Alexa McDonough and Paul Rowlands and Sandra Houston - all on board with the NDI...

Read more about all this:

here

and

here

and

here.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 11 February 2008 03:14 PM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well, if you're documenting complicity, why leave the NDP out?


Because my research is about the complicity of the Canadian government in aiding and abetting the Iraq war.

If the NDI was funded by the Canadian government and it had a role in the Iraq war, then I'd include it whether or not any NDP personalities were involved.

However, the NDI is funded by the United States Agency for International Development not the Canadian government.

If you want to get into the discussion of so-called "democracy promotion" and the manipulation of elections in Iraq and the Canadian government's role in that through Elections Canada, then I definitely think that should be researched. However that's a broader area of research than what I took on in my article. However, it is an area of research that should be worked on. It's important.

Are you saying that this stuff about these NDP individuals and the NDI is somehow related to the Canadian government's complicity in the Iraq war?

If so, please explain the connection.

[ 11 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 February 2008 03:31 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:
One source you cite says she was involved in the NDI's "Women First Camapign" but neglects to explain what that is.
It's actually called "Win With Women" [hey, I coulda written that book ].

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 12 February 2008 12:05 PM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

The Devlin made me do it!

Influence Operations

In searching for information on Canada's Maj. Gen. Peter Devlin (who became the Multi-National Force-Iraq Deputy Command General in December 2006 and is now being replaced by another Canadian, Brigadier-General Nicolas Matern), I came across a fascinating document published by a Canadian government agency (the Defence Research and Development (DRDC) - Toronto). The 135-page document is called:

Influence Operations: Historical & Contemporary Dimensions

This document says that "Influence Operations" have basically been defined as "a fairly narrow set of activities, largely in a land force context, at the operational-level and tactical-level" designed "to influence the perceptions and behaviour of...adversaries, allies and others."

It gives a more precise definition, saying Influence Ops are:
"Targeted activities intended to cause the target to behave in a desired manner primarily through effects on their will, understanding and perceptions in order to support the achievement of objectives."

The document "is aimed at enhancing the ability of the Canadian Forces (CF) to plan, implement, and evaluate influence campaigns in future expeditionary operations."

Many other sources tell us that "Influence Operations" are part of "psychological operations (PSYOP)" which in turn are part of what the military calls "Information Warfare":

source one

source two

source three

Now the idea that the Canadian Forces wants to launch psychological operations (that are part of an information warfare strategy) against "enemies" is not surprising.

What we should be more interested in is that they want to enhance their ability to launch these operations against "allies."

The document goes on:
"It is important to note that in this discussion the target of an influence operation is not necessarily an adversary, and that any individual or group could be the target of an influence operation."

Devlin on "Influence Ops"
The document describes how "influence activities" are "essential to success" of “'integrated' operations consisting of co-ordinated actions by many different agencies, such as the military, police forces, other government departments (OGDs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)."

It's how NGOs — like development agencies, that are often composed of "left-leaning" citizens — are targetted for "influence operations" by the Canadian military's intelligence agents during "information warfare" campaigns that most interests me.

The document quotes Devlin who was "Force Commander from 2003-2004 of the Kabul Multinational Brigade in Afghanistan, as part of the International Security Assistance Force," before he was Deputy Commander of the war in Iraq. It says that he "noted that with the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Kandahar the Canadian military was working along side the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian International Development Agency, 'some economic development folks, maybe some Treasury Board folks, maybe some infrastructure folks.'”

This is what's called the "3 Block War" and it's now Canadian policy called "3D" policy which integrates Diplomacy, Defence and Development.

The last D is where the developemtn NGOs get targetted, influenced and integrated into the government's war agenda.

This is significant to this discussion because we on the "left" have been subjected to their "influence operations" and many in our midst don't even suspect it. This is when these operations are MOST effective, and much of this has to do with the "trust" factor. We trust our government and have blind faith in the Canada-is-a-peacemonger mythology.

The document then goes on:
"Trust and Influence. The networks established by Devlin in Afghanistan in 2003 were limited technologically and diverse in composition. Therefore, to be successful he and his team needed strong 'people skills' to influence various actors by creating the relationships necessary to build the common intent that was critical to exploiting those limited networks, according to Devlin.... Devlin found that establishing trust was key to accepting an intelligence assessment, and that establishing personal relationships and command relationships were key to building trust in that environment. He put it this way, 'It was important to look folks in the eyes and be able to relay how important this change was and what the mission was...'"

One group he probably never had to look in the eye, is the generation of Iraqi kids affected by the war he helped lead.

Girouard on "Influence Ops"

In an interested coincidence the document then goes on to discuss the importance of "Trust and Influence" in "influence operations" as experienced by another Canadian -- Commodore Roger Girouard.

Readers of this babble discussion will recall that Girouard was the commander of the multinational naval Task Force 151 that protected 20 warships from six countries on their way through the Persian Gulf right up to the very shores of Kuwait where US aircraft carriers under their aegis then blasted away at Iraq, killing thousands.

Readers will also recall that the Canadian government and its military, and some engaged in this very Babble discussion forum, tried to pretend that the mission of Task Force 151 and the involvement of four Canadian frigates in it, had nothing to do with the Iraq War but that it was all about the war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

This despite Defence Minister McCallum's reference to the mission of Task Force 151 as a "double-hatted" one, meaning it was to achieve both missions (Iraq and Afghanistan).

And, despite the fact that Task Force 151 protected US warships blasting away at Iraq, not Afghanistan. Perhaps intelligence had come in that the Taliban with their WMD had moved to Iraq? Yeah, that's it...

Girouard said:
“'It is about trust. It is about getting out there, certainly as a Mission Commander, getting out there and looking [in] your bosses’ eyeballs and getting out there and doing that wonderful Nelsonian thing, looking in the eyeballs of your Captains.' In his experience, this personal contact enabled him to talk frankly with his superiors and subordinates about issues and concerns in ways that would not be possible in message form or even in 'chat' on the internet. With the pace and the risk (including political risk) involved in today’s operations, he added, 'trust matters more today than it ever has…'”

There is no indication however whether Girouard had any "frank" discussions with his superiors or his inferiors about why he was helping to protect US airships while they carried out the "shock and awe" bombardment of Iraq that left thousands of innocent people dead.

He could have perhaps looked them in the eye and argued -- in a fashion straight out of Alice in Wonderland -- that Canada's role in this horrendous mass murder was not right because Canada, afterall, was clearly NOT involved in any way, shape or form with the war against Iraq.

Saying such nonsense however would not build trust or "influence" people.

"Girouard said that Canadian senior naval officers established personal power in coalition operations by establishing trust among coalition partners to make the coalition function effectively..."

We can be sure that Girouard never confronted anyone about the mass murder in which he was involved. If he had, he surely wouldn't have been promoted. Girouard is now a Rear-Admiral.

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 February 2008 08:13 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well, if you're documenting complicity, why leave the NDP out?

Like Audrey McLaughlin's stint in Baghdad after the invasion working for the "National Democracy Institute".


HA ha ha! I suppose the NDP shouldn't participate in any foreign affairs or all-party committees for whatever reasons according to you. It would be a lot more difficult for the NDP to peer inside the autocrats' closed-door meetings that way. I'll bet the two old line parties would prefer it if the NDP would just go a-way...

Engler and Fenton talk about our Liberal governement in Ottawa aiding and abetting the CIA's overthrow of Aristide through CIDA payoffs to NGO's, violent terrorists and even Quebec trade unions infiltrated by the CIA doing "work" in Haiti in this decade.

quote:
Moreover, several Quebec unions that received hundreds of thousands of CIDA dollars for work in Haiti through the Centre International de Solidarité Ouvrière (CISO) passed resolutions condemning Aristide’s alleged anti-union activities. The FTQ and CSQ union federations and a half dozen NGOs are part of an informal group known as the Concertation Pour Haiti (CPH). Prior to the coup, they branded Aristide a “tyrant” and his government a “dictatorship” and a “regime of terror.” In mid-February, 2004, CPH representatives told the Canadian Press, “We think there will not be a solution without Aristide leaving.” This demand was made at the same time CIA-trained thugs swept across the country to depose Aristide.

Liberal and Conservative party stoogeocrats in Ottawa's colonial outpost also refused to hear Malalai Joya's speech condemning corruption within the Kabul chapter of the stoogeocracy. I must say, I think the NDP's call for pulling out of the Stan has come none too soon, because it appears, once again, that the twin parties in Ottawa simply refuse to say NO to Warshington. Same-old same-old.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 February 2008 08:22 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
HA ha ha! I suppose the NDP shouldn't participate in any foreign affairs or all-party committees for whatever reasons according to you.

Not really, Fidel. I just think it's a little embarrassing when prominent NDPers - including one who led the federal party for six years - turn themselves into shameless camp followers of the U.S. military. Surely there must be something else they could do to further the progressive cause internationally.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 February 2008 08:57 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, the NDP have repeatedly spoken out against Ottawa's tagging along with CIA-sponsored coups in Haiti, and spoken out more recently against millions in CIDA tax dollars being poured down the drain in Afghanistan without any receipts or sweet buggerall to show for it. I think the stoogeocrats would much rather that the NDP keep their noses out of foreign affairs and international "aid" committees in order to maintain the decades long practice of non-transparent stoogeocracy in Ottawa. It's not even embarrassing for them, because our stooges know full-well that the unfair electoral system and lack of enthusiasm for democracy in general across Canada translates to more power in their sticky little mittens.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 14 February 2008 03:27 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NDP is clearly miles ahead of the Liberals and Conservatives on Canadian foreign policy. There's no doubt on that. But unfortunately that doesn't say much. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee corporate parties are so regressive, its like comparing canada to the US. We all know how Michael Moore can make canada look like a saint when compared to the US.

Here is the NDP-related question for us is this Babble discussion:

+++++
How well has the NDP done on exposing the reality of Canada participation in the Iraq War?
+++++

Has the NDP drawn attention to the facts about Canadian government involvement in this war?

I just used google to scan the NDP website. Google is able to scan 5,400 distinct webpages within the NDP website
(Click above to see a list of all 5,400.)

Now, when we scan for the word "Iraq" within those 5,400 pages we find 100 pages

It is very sad what we find, but it is not surprising given the persuasive power of the myth that Canada said no to the Iraq war, and the mother of all Canadian myths, that Canada is a great force for global peace.

Most of the quotes on the NDP site are from Jack but no doubt what he says has been echoed by other NDP MPs and supporters left, right and centre.

Here is the basic NDP policy line on Canada's role in the the Iraq War. Brace yourself:

"Canada made the correct decision on helping George Bush invade Iraq. We said no – and Jack Layton and the NDP played a big role."
source

The phrase "said no" is key here and so I added those words to create a new google search of the NDP website.

Now there were only 7 hits.

We get quotes like this, I won't bother with exact citations, you can find them if you need too:

"If you think Jean Chrétien made the right call on Iraq, vote for the NDP that supported him."
[Jack]

"Only the NDP consistently said Mr. Chrétien was right on Iraq."
[Jack]

"We kept Canada out of the Iraq War together."
[Jack speaking to the CLC convention]

"Canada has refused to participate in the war in Iraq."
[Bill Siksay]

"What’s happening in terms of grassroots support for our position reminds me of the early days of the opposition to the war in Iraq.
In the beginning the crowds were modest, but committed.
Then they started growing and their voices got louder.
And eventually they were heard – Canada refused to participate in George Bush’s War in Iraq."
[Jack's speech to the NDP Federal Council]

There is no hint here that Canada was or is involved in any way, shape or form in the Iraq war.

Perhaps someone can find an example somewhere showing that the NDP has critiqued some particular example of Canada's involvement. However, this would not change the basic tenure of the NDP position.

Now, here's an example I'll close with. It's from a speech made by Jack on 13 Jan 2005:

"Almost two years ago, Paul Martin's first foreign speech after Canada said no to the war on Iraq was about joining ballistic missile defence. Two years later, there is still no decision, despite President Bush's desire to have the system operational by the end of this year."

Now this bothers me because I've spent a thousand times more time exposing Canada's longtime complicity in BMD than I have on Canada's role in Iraq.

To make a long story short, for many years (since the mid- to late 1990s) Canada’s government-subsidized war industries, armed forces as well other government departments and agencies have been deeply involved in the Research, Design, Creation, Development, Testing, Maintenance, Operation and Deployment of various “missile defense” weapons systems.

Here's my slide show on Canada's role in BMD

Here's what I've written on this:
Canada’s Role in so called “Missile Defense” Part 1 NORAD, Government Largesse and the ABC’s of Corporate Complicity

Part II: Sea-based, Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense

Canada’s Role in the Militarisation of Space: RADARSAT - The Warfighters’ “Eye in the Sky”

The biggest obstacle I have faced in trying to disseminate my research on the Canadian governments longstanding complicity in BMD is the feel-good myth that the Liberal government stood up and took a principled stand by saying “NO” to BMD.

Sound familiar?

The NDP has clearly adopted the predominant Canadian myths about Iraq and BMD. Doing so has allowed the NDP to score publicity points by saying that they were influential in getting the Liberals to "say no" to these two nasty US-led military enterprises.

Do NDP policy people and researchers realise that Canada is in fact deeply involved in both Iraq and BMD? Do they think it is just too difficult to tackle these myths and so they play along with them in order to gain some points? If that's the case they are doing a disservice to the antiwar movement because they are undermining efforts to expose these myths. And, this is a disservice to the Canadian public because the NDP is helping to make the myth even more deeply ingrained in our psyches. Many look to the NDP for a reality check. When the NDP parrots the official story (Canada said NO to Iraq and BMD), then many accept it more readily.

I suspect that many in NDP leadership positions and in research and policy departments have simply fallen for the myth. (The root of their problem is that they don't read my research! haha)

In either case, witting or unwitting, the NDP position is incorrect. It is based on Liberal government PR and media lies.

This is a terrible shame.

These are two wedge issues that Canadians would support the NDP on. Canadians would be aghast to learn of the Liberal and Conservative government's deep complicity and sheer hypocrisy on these two major issues.

Getting back to my earlier post about that document on "Influence Operations," it would be great if grassroots lefties across Canada were to become aware of what was going on and make these facts known to the NDP. Is there an NDP "insider" reading this who could "influence" whoever or whatever needs to be "inflenced" in the NDP machine?

Then, if the NDP were to take on the difficult but necessary job of helping expose these facts about the Canadian government's real participation in Iraq and BMD, it would not only help to wake up the general public, it would also greatly boost the NDP's support.

It's a win win situation.

=========================
P.S. Does anyone want to volunteer to email this posting to the NDP caucus and others in the party? Not much of a Valentine's day message but...

[ 14 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 February 2008 05:37 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I emailed NDP.ca "send us your comments" a link to your post, Richard. I don't have NDP caucus email addresses handy. Thanks, and thank goodness for people like Sylvia Sanders.
===
Thank you for your comments.
Canada's NDP
300 - 279 Laurier West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J9

Phone: 613-236-3613
Toll Free: 1-866-525-2555
Fax: 613-230-9950
TTY: 1-866-776-7742

[ 14 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 February 2008 08:40 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another aspect to Canada's complicity in the conquest of Iraq: legitimizing the phony elections.
quote:
Even though Canada was not a member of the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing", Ottawa is now supporting an "electoral process" which is neither "independent" nor the expression of Iraqi sovereignty. Canada is thus contributing to granting legitimacy not only to the act of aggression, but also to numerous pretexts and lies, not to mention the underlying disinformation campaign used to justify the war on Iraq.

In this way, Canada is complicit not only in the US war agenda, but also in a public relations campaign aimed at enhancing the image of the Bush administration in Iraq, which in spite of a bogus transfer of sovereignty to a "transitional" governmental body, nonetheless maintains some 150,000 occupation troops in this supposedly "sovereign" country.

Indeed, after Prime Minister Martin offered Canada's assistance to President Bush last April, and after the Bush-Martin meeting last December, Canada hosted on 19-20 December the so-called "Forum 04", a behind-closed-doors, supposedly "international" conference on the Iraqi elections. The outcome of this event was the creation of an International Mission on the Iraqi elections, with Elections Canada playing the role of a key coordinating body. All the countries involved in this "observation" mission are members of the US sponsored coalition, with the exception of Canada, Mexico and Yemen.

Canadian involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with democracy or human rights. It aims, rather, to legitimize the structures imposed on Iraq under US military occupation. In this regard, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, describes the function of election observation missions as follows: "The participation of an international body (in overseeing elections) plays a fundamental role in legitimizing, on different levels, the process of democratization or the consolidation of the democratic structure of the country in question."


Tiphaine Dickson

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 14 February 2008 09:10 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, describes the function of election observation missions as follows: "The participation of an international body (in overseeing elections) plays a fundamental role in legitimizing, on different levels, the process of democratization or the consolidation of the democratic structure of the country in question."

Yes, Elections Canada head Ben Kingsley, I mean Jean-Pierre Kingsley, gave us bright shining example of how to run a smooth, stubblefree "democracy promotion" operation in Iraq.

But M. Spectre don't forget your favourite "leftist" and mine, Bob Rae, who "risked his life" to help write the Iraqi constitution when he was "constitutional adviser to the [oh so democratic] Iraqi parliament"

Rae risks life to write Iraqi constitution

Here are the opening lines of a harsh critique of Rae's role in Iraq (and the Valpy article noted above):

"Former Ontario Premier, Bob Rae, working for Bush in Iraq
July 25, 2005

Look who's running errands for Bush/Blair in Iraq: Bob Rae. According to his very own Boswell, Michael Valpy in the Globe and Mail, Rae is bravely serving the democratic cause by working in America's "green zone" surrounded by high-priced body-guards, writing a constitution for the puppet government while US and Brit troops are busy blasting the locals. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the flattening of Falluja: hey, it doesn't bother Bob so long as Bush and Blair have work for him. "It's an ill wind, that blows no one any good."

The piece gets better, read the rest of it here:
Critique of Rae in Iraq

But, is this perhaps a bit of a distraction from the focus on the Canadian government's role in Iraq?

I do think that we should try a few "influence operations" of our own and look our NDP leadership in the eye and say:

Hey, why aren't you exposing Canada's real role in the Iraq War and in BMD?

Trying to get people to vote NDP by telling them that the NDP successfully pushed the Liberal's into saying "NO" on Iraq and BMD is a sure way for the NDP to shoot itself in the foot.

It feeds the silly myth that the Liberals actually said "NO" to these things. And, if that myth is really true, then why wouldn't potential NDP voters just vote strategically for the Liberals?

To be fair here, the Liberals actually did "SAY no" to both Iraq and BMD. The trouble is spun Reagan's maxim:

"Just SAY no"
(The Liberal emphasis is on the "say" part.)

The Liberals SAID "no," but they followed through with a lot of actions that MEANT "yes."

It's called hypocrisy. It's something the Liberals do best.

[ 14 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 14 February 2008 09:46 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I emailed NDP.ca "send us your comments" a link to your post, Richard. I don't have NDP caucus email addresses handy. Thanks, and thank goodness for people like Sylvia Sanders.
===
Thank you for your comments.
Canada's NDP
300 - 279 Laurier West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J9

Phone: 613-236-3613
Toll Free: 1-866-525-2555
Fax: 613-230-9950
TTY: 1-866-776-7742

[ 14 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


Don't hold your breath.
I agree that the NDP foreign policy is well ahead of the other 2 parties but...
1)The NDP will not win popularity, or votes,(the bottom line) by undermining Canada's feelgood illusions about its "independent" position on Iraq (even though burying the reality further compromises Canada's independence).
2)Admitting the true history of Canada's active role in Iraq would undermine the NDP's previous claims on the subject.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 February 2008 10:07 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:

2)Admitting the true history of Canada's active role in Iraq would undermine the NDP's previous claims on the subject.

I suspect you have a reference for it. But I can't remember Jack Layton ever sounding like Paul Martin's impression of a warmongering stoogeocrat oops, a warmongering Liberal Democrat American-style.

ETA: I think Bob Rae swapped team jerseys some time ago after sabotaging the ONDP

[ 14 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Richard Sanders
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1131

posted 14 February 2008 10:17 AM      Profile for Richard Sanders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

I suspect you have a reference for it. But I can't remember Jack Layton ever sounding like Paul Martin's impression of a warmongering stoogeocrat oops, a warmongering Liberal Democrat American-style.

Fidel, I gave a half dozen quotes just above showing how Jack has backed up the Liberal PR about how they virtuously said "no" to the Iraq war.

That's not as bad as actually DOING all the many things that the Liberals did to actually support the war, but it is a way that the NDP has lent support to the mythology that protects the Liberals and helps to get them re-elected.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 February 2008 11:16 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Sanders:

Fidel, I gave a half dozen quotes just above showing how Jack has backed up the Liberal PR about how they virtuously said "no" to the Iraq war.


That's a stretch. What that says to me is that the Liberals were pushed and prodded into saying no to committing Canadian troops in Iraq, and the NDP is saying that they had some effect on Paul Martin's weak-minded decision for a Canadian-made answer to George Bush and nothing more.

I don't see anything about Iraqgate on the NDP's web site either. Absence of a condemnation is not proof of complicity to chickenhawk terrorism abroad, imo.

Canadian Sovereignty

quote:
At the same time we are seeing ourselves bullied into sellout softwood lumber deals which within only a few days of signing, has resulted in the loss of 2,500 jobs with many more on the way. We are witnessing a movement toward a Canadian military economy, fashioned after the US, as we divert billions of tax dollars to the military industrial complex to spend on hardware to fight in the wrong mission in Afghanistan. We are witnessing a blatant attempt to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, a great Canadian success story, for the benefit of the multinational corporations who now control 80% of the world grain trade.

I think the NDP learned their lesson from fighting two election campaigns against free trade. The result was betrayal of Canadian voters by the Liberals on NAFTA in 1994. That took a lot of time and resources the NDP didn't have to spare. For me, the NDP's message couldn't be clearer. If you want Americanization of Canada, then make sure to vote for either of the two old line parties, the Bloc or Greens. And if you want to save this country from stoogeocracy, then vote NDP.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402

posted 14 February 2008 11:31 AM      Profile for M.Gregus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm closing things here for length but feel free to continue the discussion in a new thread.

Edited to add thread link.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: M.Gregus ]


From: capital region | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca