babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Canada's "Open Secret": Deep Complicity in the Iraq War
February 15, 2008 - 5:17am
U.S. report says Canada did help in Iraq war
So, I am restarting it here.
Coincidentally, just a few hours before the discussion was terminated, I had sent the article (appended below) to the email list of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT).
The article gave the URL link to the Babble discussion on Canada's role in Iraq and encouraged people to contribute to the debate.
Here's the article:
Canada's "Open Secret": Deep Complicity in the Iraq War
By Richard Sanders, Editor, Press for Conversion!
Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade
A Canadian Brig. Gen., Nicolas Matern, has just arrived in Baghdad. This former commander of Canada's Joint Task Force 2 counter-terrorism unit is the deputy commander of the US 18th Airborne Corps and he now reports to Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III, who leads the 170,000-strong Multi-National Corps-Iraq. Its primary task is to conduct "offensive operations to defeat remaining non-compliant forces."
Matern is the third Canadian Forces (CF) general to help lead a command group overseeing the U.S.-led war in Iraq. His predecessor, CF Maj. Gen. Peter Devlin was the Deputy Commander General of the Multi-National Force-Iraq since December 2006.
Prior to Devlin's posting, which started in January 2004, CF Maj. Gen. Walt Natynczyk commanded ten brigades totalling 35,000 troops stationed throughout Iraq. When Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson gave Natynczyk Canada's Meritorious Service Cross, her office extolled his "pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations [which] resulted in a tremendous contribution to...Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and...brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada."
It may come as a surprise to most Canadiansincluding many peace activists in this countrythat Canada is even involved in the Iraq war. Even more shocking may be the news that the provision of top CF personnel to command posts in Iraq is but one example among many contributions that the Canadian government has made to this US-led war.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government's 2003 pretence that Canada was opting out of participation in Iraq has been repeated so many times that it has become accepted as the truth. Even when presented with multifarious examples of Canada's complicity in this war, some Canadians are loath to believe it. The fact that the Canadian government has been a major player in the Iraq war since its very inception, also directly contradicts the powerful national myth that Canada is a global force for peace.
This Canadian myth has taken on the appearance of a state religion and some of its faithful adherents demonstrate a strong reluctance to question it. This is evident in Rabble's online "leftwing discussion forum" (called Babble) where a debate has raged since the publication of an earlier version of this article appeared in Vancouver's Common Ground magazine (February 2008).
To read and/or join the discussion about Canada's role in the Iraq war, please click this link.
U.S. report says Canada did help in Iraq war
While many Canadians, even some on the "left," have difficulty accepting the reality that Canada is deeply engaged in the Iraq war, this fact was admitted early on by then-U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci. On March 25, 2003, during the "shock and awe" bombardment of Iraq, Cellucci gratefully acknowledged to members of the posh Economic Club of Toronto, 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."
Although Cellucci's statement merely scratched the surface of Canada's initial "support" for the Iraq war, at least he 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 our government joined the fray:
Protecting and Supporting the Coalition Navy:
Thirteen hundred Canadian troops aboard four of Canada's multibillion dollar warships escorted the multinational fleet, including US aircraft carriers, through the Persian Gulf and right up to the shores of Kuwait, thus putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq. Besides performing such "force-protection operations," Canadian frigates also contributed vital "fleet-support" functions to coalition warships.
Leading the Coalition Navy:
Canadian Rear-Admiral Roger Girouard commanded Coalition Task Force 151, leading 20 warships from six countries during the "shock and awe" bombardment of Iraq which killed thousands of innocent people.
Providing War Planners:
At least two dozen Canadian war planners working at U.S. Central Command in Florida were transferred to the Persian Gulf in early 2003 to help oversee the war's complicated logistics.
Helping Coordinate the War:
Canadian military personnel, working aboard American E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System warplanes, helped direct the electronic war by providing surveillance, command, control and communications services to US warfighters.
Providing Airspace and Refuelling:
Countless U.S. warplanes carrying troops and equipment have flown over Canada, to and from the Iraq war. With as many as two or three such flights a day and carrying about a thousand US troops to battle, many such warplanes were allowed to refuel in Gander, Newfoundland.
Providing Air Transport:
At least three Canadian CC-130 military transport planes were listed by the U.S. military as helping supply coalition forces during the Iraq war.
Freeing up U.S. Troops:
Canada's major role in the Afghan war has freed up many thousands of U.S. troops for deployment to Iraq.
Providing Ground Troops:
At least 35 Canadian soldiers were directly under U.S. command, in an exchange capacity, on the ground, participating in the invasion of Iraq.
Facilitating US Weapons Testing:
Two types of cruise missiles (AGM-86 and -129) and the Global Hawk (RQ-4A) surveillance drone, used in Iraq, were tested over Canada.
Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons:
Canada is the world's top exporter of uranium. Our government pretends that Canada's uranium is sold for peaceful purposes only, but absolutely nothing is done to stop the U.S. from using DU in their weapons. America's A-10 Wart Hog warplanes have fired DU munitions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, while each cruise missile contains three kgs of DU ballast.
Providing RADARSAT Data:
Eagle Vision, a U.S. Air Force mobile ground station which controls Canada's RADARSAT-1 satellite and downlinks its data was used from the start of the Iraq war. Since December 2007, RADARSAT-2 data has also been available to US warfighters in Iraq.
Diplomatic Support:
Then-Prime Minister Jean Chrйtien supported the right of the U.S. to invade Iraq, although Kofi Annan said it was an illegal occupation. Chrйtien "urged Canadians...not to criticise the US for attacking Iraq," saying that to do so "would comfort Saddam Hussein."
Training Iraqi Police:
Canada has spent millions sending RCMP officers to Jordan to train tens of thousands of cadets for Iraq's paramilitary police force.
Training Iraqi Troops:
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 U.S. 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.
Funding Iraq's Interior Ministry:
Canada provides advisors and financial support to this Ministry which has been caught running torture centres. Thousands of its officers have been withdrawn for corruption, and it has been accused of working with death squads that executed a thousand people per month in Baghdad alone during the summer of 2006.
Military Exports:
At least 100 Canadian companies sold parts and/or services for major weapons systems used in the Iraq war. For example, Quebec-based SNC-TEC sold millions of bullets to the U.S. military forces occupying Iraq. General Dynamics Canada, in London Ontario, sold hundreds of armoured vehicles to the US and Australia. Between October 2003 and November 2005, these troop transport vehicles logged over 6 million miles in Iraq. And, Winnipeg's Bristol Aerospace sells cluster-bomb dispensing warheads used by US aircraft in Iraq.
Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Investments:
The CPP forces working Canadians outside Quebec to invest their pension money in hundreds of military industries, including most of the world's top 20 weapons producers. These CPP investments include the leading prime contractors for virtually all the major US weapons systems used in Iraq.
So, the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn't join the Iraq war, refer them to this article and then remind them of Mark Twain's famous qwip:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
For more information, on the myth of Canada's role as a global peacemaker, read Press for Conversion! and visit the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade ([URL=http://coat.ncf.ca ]COAT[/URL]) website.
To view COAT's online slideshow about Canada's hypocritical role in the Iraq War, click here.
The URL for this article is:
http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/Canada_in_Iraq.htm
[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
To be expected, considering that he's turned continuing to do the same things Canada would have been doing even if there wasn't a war in Iraq into "deep complicity".
Our fleet commitment, in particular, predates 9/11, let alone the Iraq war. Ongoing exchange arrangements aren't "deep complicity". Air travel over Canada isn't even "complicity".
Cruise missile testing? You're actually trying to argue cruise missile testing is "deep complicity"? Give me a break. The reason people are resisting your argument isn't because they have "a strong reluctance to question" Canadian non-involvement; it's because you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, and turn next to nothing into "deep complicity".
I look at every one of the facts you cite, and say, "yeah, I knew that, but none of that is direct support for the invasion of Iraq, let alone 'deep complicity'." We still said, "No," and 35 troops on exchange doesn't change that.
It is enabling aggression especially when Canada refused to join out of conviction that a wrong is being committed.
I call it aiding and abetting.
It's mission was to protect and give support to allied warships, including US aircraft carriers.
Canada led them right through the entire Persian Gulf and to the very shores of Kuwait in March 2003.
What did they do then, give candy to Afghan children?
No, they bombed the heck out of Iraq.
They executed the horrific "shock and awe" bombardments of Iraq that killed tens of thousands of innocent people, including children.
Sorry, but that IS deep Canadian complicity. Face it.
If someone was driven to your neighbour's house by guys with guns and then somebody else in the car actually fired the shots that killed your neighbour's family, I would say that the drivers with guns were deeply complicit in the crime.
Wouldn't you?
If these murderers came to you and said, hey, can we cut through your yard, it's the fastest way to get over there where we want to kill a your neighbours, would you let them cut through?
If so you'd be an accomplice to the murder.
Would you say, sure, but first let me feed you,
let me give you some weapons to take over there,
do you need anybody to help you over the fence?
do you want to cut back through here on your way back from the job?
can I send my kids along to help you?
do you need help planning the murder, or carrying it out, or covering it up?
And, if they didn't thank you for all this help or for facilitating the testing of their weapons in advance, would you feel slighted?
They should at least thank you.
Actually they did thank us. Read the Cellucci quote. Read the Powell quote.
Canada didn't want to be thanked because we wanted to keep it a secret.
Wouldn't you?
But you will perhaps argue that it is unfair to compare the the role of accomplices in the murder of a family (even your neighbour's family) to complicity in the war against Iraq.
Mass murder of thousands is so much worse. the principle is just the same however.
And there were hundreds of Canadian sailors on the 4 frigates that "protected" US warships and refurbished them on their way to the spot where they massacred so many innocent people in Iraq.
So don't make it sound as if Canada only handed over 3 dozen soldiers as fodder to the US war in Iraq.
Don't forget the two dozen warplanners either.
Warplanners are significant people in a war.
So are deputy commanders. Canada has provided three of those, so far.
And it is totally irrelevent that Canada's naval commitment started before the Iraq war. The point is that our support for the Afghan war was immediately transformed into a commitment to support the Iraq war.
Ask Cellucci or Powell, they know and appreciate what Canada did and is still doing to support this war.
[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
Some babblers like to think that Canada's complicity in the Iraq war is something that just happened all by itself, on account of the previous long-time intertwining of Canada's armed forces and defence production industries with the US military-industrial complex.
But Canada had ample opportunity to end that intertwining once it had become clear the US was going to attack Iraq, but it failed to do so. No arms shipments were suspended or cancelled, no troop deployments were withdrawn, no personnel exchange agreements were terminated.
And it was not through inadvertence or inaction that Canada's extensive support and cooperation with the US war machine was allowed to continue throughout the war. It was a conscious policy of the Liberal government to allow Canadian personnel under allied command to carry on with their assignments in furtherance of the War on Terra, including the Iraq war. Canada's own Operation Apollo, launched shortly after 9/11 as our "contribution" to the War on Terra, was continued right through the initial war on Afghanistan, and right through the war on Iraq, until five months after Bush had infamously declared "Mission accomplished."
Far from opposing the attack on Iraq, Canada materially aided and abetted it. The Liberal government could have done something similar to what another ally, Turkey, did initially. Turkey refused to allow United States forces to use Turkish air bases as launching points for air attacks on Iraq; they also refused to allow the movement of American ground troops through their country.
What did Canada do? Well, I don't need to repeat what Richard has amply documented; suffice it to point out that Canada did nothing to hinder the free movement of US warplanes and troop carriers over our soil, through our air bases, and didn't withhold a drop of aviation fuel, a single bullet or bomb or armoured vehicle, etc., all the while pretending that it had decided not to participate. Meanwhile it kept sending Canadian ships to the Persian Gulf, long after the start of the "shock and awe" campaign against Iraq: HMCS Montreal, HMCS Winnipeg, HMCS Regina, HMCS Iroquois, HMCS Fredericton, and HMCS Calgary all were deployed during 2003 in support of US criminal activities.
Just a small interjection about babble netiquette:
Carry on.
[Link to the archive of the thread that was abruptly closed: U.S. report says Canada did help in Iraq war]
Abruptness has nothing whatsoever to do with how long ago the thread was started, or revived.
Abrupt = sudden or unexpected.
Dear Sirs;
On January 23, 2003 Lawyers against the War wrote to you stressing the grave implications of Canada’s participation in an illegal war against Iraq.
As you are well aware, this horrifying assault on the land and people of Iraq has not been authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations, as any honest reading of Resolutions 1441, as well as 678 and 687, will show. Nor is it within the narrow confines of the right of self-defence, which permits neither “pre-emptive strikes” nor "regime change". Thus, this war violates the most fundamental principles of international law, as well as the Charter of the United Nations, a treaty binding on the US, the UK and Canada.
According to the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, such a war constitutes “the supreme international crime.”[1]
Furthermore, every act of violence committed in the pursuit of such a war is itself a crime. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. prosecutor before the Nuremberg Tribunal:
Any resort to war--any kind of war--is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive war illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave the war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes.[2]
During the first week of this war more than a thousand Iraqis were killed, and not just soldiers but civilians, too-- men, women and children. This relentless slaughter is, legally and morally speaking, murder. It is the deliberate killing of human beings without lawful justification or excuse. The absence of any lawful justification is a direct result of the absence of any moral justification.
Under the National Defence Act, the Canadian government has no right to order our forces to participate in any war except
(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or
(b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada.[3]
Not only is the invasion of Iraq not an action undertaken pursuant to the NATO Treaty, even that treaty is expressly subordinated to the Charter of the United Nations. The relevant parts of the NATO treaty are as follows:
[Preamble]: The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
Article 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the united Nations.
Article 7: This treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.[4]
Like most Canadians, we were relieved when your government declared it would not participate in this war without a Security Council resolution specifically authorizing the use of force. However, it is increasingly apparent that this laudable declaration is subject to unacceptable exceptions. It is clear that, by reason of your decision, Canadian troops and ships are now participating in this illegal war.
You have said that you do not want to give comfort to Saddam Hussein, but your aid and comfort to the American forces is implicating Canadians in a horrible crime. We cannot stand by and allow this to be done, in violation of both Canadian and international law.
We feel bound to remind you that your material support for this war has no lawful, let alone moral, justification or excuse; it is, therefore, nothing short of the aiding and abetting of murder, as well as a host of other grave crimes against person and property punishable under the Canadian Criminal Code.
As you know, responsibility under Canadian criminal law is personal. There is no exception for government officials, be they Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers or Defence Ministers. As you also know, Canadian courts have jurisdiction to punish such crimes to the extent that significant elements of them -- such as decisions on the assignment of Canadian troops -- take place in Canada or on board Canadian vessels.
Furthermore, the massive bombing of cities and towns is a systematic violation of the Geneva Conventions and violates the Rome Statute and the Canadian Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
Therefore, we implore you to withdraw Canadian troops and ships from the invasion of Iraq and stop implicating yourselves and Canada in this appalling criminal enterprise.
Should further clarification of anything in this letter be required, we would welcome the opportunity to provide it to you, preferably in person.
Sincerely,
Gail Davidson and Michael Mandel[5] on behalf of Lawyers against the War
On March 20, in Prime Minister Chrйtien's first public statement after the air war officially began, Chrйtien said in the House of Commons that:
"It was the Americans' privilege and right to make the decision that they made. We respect that… Of course, I hope that the Americans will do as well as possible."
Hmmm.. Does that sound like unequivocal opposition to the war, or a principled denunciation of the war?
No, that is was typical Liberal diplomatic support and cheerleading for US war effort.
And, in the same speech, Chrйtien said (as I reported earlier):
"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."
Hmmm.... I guess that means an actual physical protest, or a nonviolent direct action to get in the way of Canada's support for the US war effort, would be frowned upon. I guess our fearless leader would have felt that such protesters should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, even if he had to throttle them himself.
Bravo Liberals, you really stood up to those warmongering Americans!
Now some extra details on those pesky little overflights and refuelling stops that have been put down as so trivial and insignificant by some members of this forum.
Many US warplanes en route to Iraq were flying through Canadian air space on their way to the Iraq war. Although his may not seem significant to some it was one of the things that the US had specifically requested from members of the “Coalition of the Willing.”
Some countries gained entry into this criminal gang merely for letting the US fly over their country.
Canada went one step further in that category of support. US aircraft carrying many thousands troops to Iraq were allowed to stop in St. John's and Stephenville, Newfoundland.
The purpose of these stopovers was for refueling and crew changes.
Here's a quote about the refuelling:
“In recent weeks, as the U.S. has used Newfoundland as a refueling stop for military flights en route to the Middle East. ‘We've been getting roughly 2 or 3 U.S. flights a day, with probably 1000 troops coming through each day,’ said Gary Vey, CEO of the Gander Airport Authority”
(Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2003).
A thousand US troops per day!
I would say that in itself was significant act of complicity in this criminal war.
[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
Jean Chretien:
Bob Rae:
Thanks to jeff house for drawing that lie to my attention.
But Canada had a choice of joining in the U.S. invasions of Indochina and Iraq, or not. Unlike many other countries, Canada did not join in those invasions. I have a hard time treating these historic decisions as being some minor events. Yet that's the message I'm getting here.
The evidence says otherwise.
There are more ways of joining in a war than sending ground troops to invade.
It was all in a days business for this well-established gang of thieves and murderers.
It was a carefully planned attack using a wide array of weapons from brassknuckles to clubs to guns.
The attackers acted in concert having worked out very carefully in advance all of the myriad of details that had to be worked out to make the attack a success.
They needed to plan such things as who would provide the various weapons, where they would stay before and after the attack, who would provide the get away vehicles, who would drive these vehicles, who would drive shot gun to protect their convoy, whow would fill their vehicles with fuel, who would stand at the end of the alley to alert them if someone came along to assist their victim while they were attacking him, who would arrange the allimportant liaison with the police, and so many other important details.
It was a lot of work but the gang had done it so many times before and they knew each other and their skills so well that it wasn't difficult for them and it went smoothly.
They got away with the crime.
However, let us imagine that they had been brought to a fair trial. Yes, this is a preposterous idea. This gang has never been tried. Everyone knows they are criminals but they always get away with their crimes.
At our imaginary trial, the lawyers and supporters of one of the thugs claim that their client had not take part in the attack.
Yes, they admit that he was there in the ally, yes, he had worked with the thugs in advance, yes, he had assisted them in their planning, and had driven the vehicles to get the gang to and from the scene of the crime, yes, he had protected the other thugs from attack and yes, he had worked closely with the police to ensure that they would not be prosecuted and, they admitted, yes, their client had actually taken part in various aspects of the execution of the attack.
(And, they also admitted that their client had, on a previous occasion, taken part in another attack against this same man when they had previous been worked in concert with this same same gang.)
"Then how can you say that your client is not guilty?" asked the judge.
"Because we have statements made by our client proving that fact," say the thug's lawyers.
"Statements? What are those statements?" asks the judge.
"We can prove that on numerous occasions our client stated publicly that he had not joined in this particular attack."
"Our client has frequently stated, on the record, that he had decided not to be involved."
"This is well known. You can ask anyone. Everyone knows that our client has stated repeatedly that he stayed out of this attack. Everyone knows that he says he was not involved."
"This fact has been reported far and wide, it has been in the papers, on TV, the radio and it is a widely known FACT!"
"Our clinet is innocent and this is a kangaroo court. We demand our clients immendiate release and we demand an apology and we demand that anyone saying he is guilty be held responsible for their irresponsible and libelous comments."
Now, we are the judges here. It is up to us to decide whether this thug was involved or not. Whether he is guilty or not. Whether his lawyer is part of the conspiracy or just a hopeless dupe.
What should we say to such preposterous statements by the attorneys for this thug?
This thug will never go to jail, he will never be punished. He and his gang have benefitted from their crime. They stole the things that they wanted. They got away with it. Crime does pay.
They are too powerful to prosecute.
Anyone pointing out the facts of their client's involvement in the crime will be lambasted and belittled and accused of distorting the facts.
However, by declaring that the thug is indeed guilty of the crime, they have freed themselves. Gone are the mental cages and cultural myths that imprison in their thoughts and pen in their understanding of reality.
So, although they may suffer indignities and accusations, they know that they have freed themsleves from a ridiculos myth. This is liberating.
They know who the real criminals are, and that the thug who was so deeply involved in the crime, but SAYS he wasn't, is still just as guilty of deep complicity the crime, regardless of his lies and the resulting public perception of his innocence.
And, very importantly, they can decide not to trust this thug again.
And, they can decide that they will not vote for him again. (He is in the habit of running for either mayor or police chief, and he often wins.)
And, more importantly, they can try to set the record straight so as to prevent others from continuing to empower this thug because they have been deluded into thinking that he is innocent.
Or, they can do the easiest thing:
They can continue the farce. They can continue to cover up our thug's involvement in this crime and say he "did not join" in this attack.
It's up to them. They must assess the evidence and judge for themselves.
[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
The more I read of your material, the less convinced I am that there even progressive Canadians are going to get up in arms about Canada's complicity in the war in Iraq.
The U.S. desperately needs public support for its wars of aggression, even from those who can materially contribute next to nothing.
That's why the White House actually lists forty-nine (49) countries on its website as members of the "Coalition of the Willing", even though only four of them (U.K., Australia, Poland, and Denmark) contributed troops to Iraq.
Canada is not one of the 49. Nor are many other traditional U.S. allies.
You consider that to be a secret understanding about multi-layered roles of complicity. I consider that as a major victory for the peace movement, which saw millions worldwide, and hundreds of thousands in Canada, take to the streets - as well as other factors.
Your information gathering is important, but your apparent determination to minimize the difference between Canada's avid participation in the Afghanistan invasion and occupation and its refusal to participate in the Iraq invasion and occupation is confusing at best and very counterproductive at worst.
unionist,
1) Canada's assistance (over-flights, for example) does meet the definition 'membership' in the Coalition of the Willing.
2) There are countries that publicly committed and others that are not pubicly committed.
Canada, in light of the facts was a member of the latter category. (I should add that our contribution has been a tad more than, say, Rwanda's). Don't you agree ?
[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Cellucci admitted that Canada was contributing more than most members of the "Coalition of the Willing." Despite this admission, most Canadians remain ignore of our role in Iraq. It is a major struggle to get the word out about Cdn complicity.
Powell admitted that there were 15 countries that were contributing but that didn't want to be recognized as contributing. Shhhhhh!
How is it in any way a "major victory for the peace movement" that the Canadian government pretended that it wasn't going to join the war and then turned around and played a major role in the war and then kept that complicity largely a secret for the past five years?
That is a "major victory" for the Liberal Party PR machine!
That is a "major victory" for the those who want the Liberals to be seen as a party that opposed the war when it actually supported it in numerous significant ways!
Yeah, vote Liberal!
That is "major victory" for those who want to keep Canadians in the dark!
That is "major victory" for hypocrisy!
If there was a Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy, Canada would win it hands down.
This hypocrisy was not "a major victory for the peace movement."
And yet "unionist" says then my efforts in exposing this hypocrisy are:
"confusing at best and very counterproductive at worst."
Rather than criticising the Liberal duplicity, those who try to expose it get criticised.
This is very rich in irony.
[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
Since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the USSA has bombed over 21 countries and invaded dozens of countries. In what way have our stoogeocrats in Ottawa opposed any of it besides signing the dumbest free trade agreements guaranteeing the vicious empire that we would never dream of curtailing Canada's numero uno oil and gas exports to that country?
Richard Sanders has listed dozens of ways our stoogeocrats in Ottawa have kowtowed and played subserviant roles to and are guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal empire over several decades of phony majority rule and sharing power between the two old line parties in this frozen Puerto Rico. Liberal, Tory, it's the same old story, and there's not a ray of sunshine between 'em.
And because of the complicity of the media and the parties of the "left", Canadians can be forgiven for their ignorance.
What is unforgivable is for supposedly progressive Canadians, when made aware of the facts, to join in on the deception of the public as to Canada's supposed "neutrality" or even "opposition" to the Iraq war.
It's myth-mongering at its worst.
Ya, no more warmongering Liberal plutocrats.
Your baiting style detracts from the value of your research. What don't you just give that up, please, it's immature and unimpressive.
I disagree with your assessment of what is a victory and what is a defeat for the peace movement. If you can't handle that disagreement without name-calling - well, keep trying.
I readily admit to this crime of sarcasm.
Actually, sarcasm can be a serious health hazard. It can cause much stress for those engaged in my profession. (I'm an antiwar researcher/writer.)
As such, sarcasm is — in fact — an occupational hazard for which I should rightly receive copious amounts of government compensation. But alas, being self-employed, I cannot even dream of receiving such payment for this workplace hazard.
I also confess that my recent bout of debilitating sarcasm (which, you are correct, is a serious impediment to my writing abilities) was brought on when I read that my serious efforts to expose Canadian complicity in Iraq War were said to be "counterproductive" to the peace movement.
This is the same peace movement that has supposedly benefitted so greatly from the previously-mentioned "major success" of having the Canadian government proclaim that it wasn't involved in the Iraq war, when in fact it was (and is) a significant participant.
I should perhaps join a Canadian union that does all of the following:
(1) manufacturers weapons systems for use in the Iraq war,
(2) criticises the Iraq war,
(3) congratulates the Canadian government for not joining the Iraq war,
(4) encourages Canadians to vote strategically (for the Liberal Party).
Then, I might be able to receive workers compensation for the debilitating disease with which I am afflicted, "repetitive sarcasm disorder."*
* I am surprised to find that the Google search engine finds no reference, not even one, to the phrase "repetitive sarcasm disorder." I would therefore like to claim credit for the creation of this new term, if not for the discovery of a new health disorder. No doubt, my check for this is in the mail, along with my "workers' comp" payment.
[ 20 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
The article is called: "Canada in Iraq: Dedication to the war of terror."
Here's a taste:
"There is growing (but still insufficiently
organized) opposition to Canada’s role
in Afghanistan, and there is a growing
network of Haiti solidarity activists. But
little attention is being paid to Canada’s
role in Iraq. A look at the readily available
facts shows that Canada is complicit in
Iraq and that vocal and explicit opposition
to this is necessary."
Fenton concludes by saying:
"The extent of Canadian complicity
in the most horrific and brutal military
intervention in this young 21st century
is probably far greater than we realize.
By acknowledging this and incorporating
this understanding into a broader
anti-war strategy, the Canadian Left will
take an important step forward in the
protracted confrontation over Canada’s
increasingly ugly role in the world."
Download the magazine containing this article
From Fenton's article:
How very counterproductive of him!
"Canada made the correct decision on helping George Bush invade Iraq. We said no – and Jack Layton and the NDP played a big role."
"Only the NDP consistently said Mr. Chrйtien was right on Iraq."
[Jack]
"We kept Canada out of the Iraq War together."
[Jack speaking to the CLC convention]
"Canada refused to participate in George Bush’s War in Iraq."
[Jack's speech to the NDP Federal Council]
The weirdest offshoot of this myth-promoting NDP position was that if voters wanted to support Liberal PM Chretien, they should vote NDP.
"If you think Jean Chrйtien made the right call on Iraq, vote for the NDP that supported him."
[Jack]
Now if we are looking for something truly counterproductive, I think we've found it!
The Liberal response was no doubt to smile and say:
"Why not just eliminate the NDP middleman, and vote Liberal in the first place. We'll give you all the phoney peace victories you apparently want."
In fact, my research indicates we were already engaged in such exports while the U.S. was invading Vietnam, bombing Cambodia, blockading Cuba, persecuting gays and lesbians, maintaining one of the world's highest rates of capital punishment, and denying essential health to millions of its citizens.
The conclusion is clear: Individual Canadians, through their wilful blindness in electing one pro-U.S. Canadian government after another, are personally complicit in all acts of U.S. aggression and repression. I am actually - right this moment - feeling intense guilt pangs, just to the left of the solar plexus, for the very existence and persistence of the capitalist system everywhere.
Next to these monstrous crimes of which Canada stands condemned and convicted, it is truly difficult to imagine what point there is to mobilizing public opinion (for example) for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Sure, the soldiers will come home - but the remaining U.S. and NATO troops may still be munching on Nanaimo bars and tourtiиres, so what the hell will we really truly have accomplished?
If the pacifist Mennonite production workers in Elmira, Ontario had been given the knowledge that they were manufacturing chemical weapons for US troops in Vietnam, they would have walked out. Production would have been affected. The public would have been alerted to Canada's complicity.
Bricks may have been laid along an alternate path for Canada - US relations.
The difficulty with Afghanistan and Iraq currently is that people can't tell them apart. The vaunted party line is that Canada stood up to the US on Iraq, so therefore, what we're doing in the region must be peacekeeping, or peacemaking -- not fighting a US proxy war, and those who say so are probably just anti-capitalist US-haters. The thinking is, it's a tragedy that our soldiers have to die for this but we are maintaining our proud Canadian role in the world.
[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]
Not just Nanaimo bars and tourtières, of course, but helicopters, tanks, and other armaments. Meanwhile, you'd be breaking out the champagne and congratulating the Canadian government on its commitment to world peace.