NATO would be willing to listen if Iraq asks for help

[Pieman]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO would be willing to listen if Iraq asks for help
Last Updated Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:35:20
BRUSSELS - NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer says the military alliance would be prepared to listen to Iraq's new government if it came seeking assistance in stabilizing the country.


INDEPTH: Iraq

Last week U.S. President George W. Bush said NATO should be involved in Iraq.


So far the military alliance has limited itself to providing logistical support for a Polish-led division in south-central Iraq.

NATO is due to hold a summit in Istanbul just two days before Iraq's new interim government takes power.



Written by CBC News Online staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/16/world/nato040616

If NATO goes, then so does Canada. I would venture to guess the earliest NATO forces coiuld move in there is about a year if they do go.  What capasity would Canada be able to contribute, I wonder?

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

I, and I'm sure a large number of people, believe we shouldn't go there. It's not a cause, that I for one believe in, or one that Canada should be involved in.

As a NATO country though, we would have the right to decide whether or not we'd like to go, we're not in the days of the British Empire like in WW1 when an ally goes to war we have tag along with them.

I hope that the new PM, who ever it will be, will get the country a better back bone and put their foot down and say "No! This is not what we believe in!"

Besides, the way things are with our military, Iraq would be a CONSIDERABLE strain on the forces, which would ruin allot of the effort and measures that have been done to rebuild it and fix the degradation of us doing too much, too long with too little.

 

[Pieman]

I, and I'm sure a large number of people, believe we shouldn't go there. It's not a cause, that I for one believe in, or one that Canada should be involved in.

Yes, I am sure there are a lot of people that don't feel we should go there. Going into Iraq initially was not a very popular idea here in Canada.

The situation has changed now. We would not be going for the purpose of taking over the country but to help stabilize it. There is a big problem over there, are we going to sit on the sidelines, or help fix it?  Personally, I think we have a responsibility to help stabilize the country if we can.  If not for the people of Iraq, but for our own security. If America fails to stabilize that country, Canada is going to get caught in the cross fire. That would not be a good situation to be in at all.

I agree with your point about the strain on our military, even if called upon, maybe we would not have much to contribute at this time anyway?

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Those are some good points Pieman but you need to analyze the issue deeper.

If we went to stabilize Iraq and help the people, that would fall under a UN mission, as its role would be humanitarian. Going to Iraq under NATO, is going as a result as a military alliance, meaning you're just asking for trouble.

If Canada did go to Iraq under the UN, then I'd be more open eyed to it. However, I'm quite sure that despite the authority of the PM being able to send soldiers overseas on a Peace Keeping mandate of the UN Charter Chapter 6, he would not do so because the decision would also be very unpopular, I'm quite sure that if he wanted to keep his political career intact, he'd ask for approval of parliament despite not needing it.

Also, Iraq is a very difficult area of operations to launch a peacekeeping effort; therefore some more aggressive Rules of Engagement would have to be written up, meaning that perhaps Canada would go as a â Å“Peace Makingâ ? role which would now be a UN Chapter 7 role that does require approval from parliament.

Also, look at this from a military point of view. I like to think that if we don't bother someone, they won't bother us. There are many people who have stated on this site before that the extremists don't know what Canada is and who we are and what we stand for etc. and that they'd attack us anyways....but I ask you, why give them a reason or an incentive?

Besides,  Iraq never had the WMD capability to attack North American EVER! Why? Because Iraq's nuke programs and facilities were constantly attacked by the ISAF and the US before and after Dessert Storm. Look at countries like India and Pakistan, who haven't had their nuke programs interfered with, they've been working on their nukes for decades now and they don't have the capability to fire one outside the Middle East...not even close!

So is Iraq a threat? No, the extremists are, why give them a reason so that propaganda and extreme corrupted religious beliefs would cause them to think we are an enemy or target. 

Keep in mind that what could be seen as a humanitarian effort to us appears to be an imperialistic hostile takeover to them.

Remember the Japanese soldiers that were taken hostage etc? Japan's Army (Japan Ground Domestic Security Force) is a NON OFFENSIVE military force! They are purely Defensive. They went to Iraq with less then 300 soldiers to purify water and only carried small caliber submachine guns to protect themselves. Obviously, the extremists thought otherwise.

As for the strain issue, a strain no matter how small, is still a strain. At this point we shouldn't be letting any go through because they are too damaging at this present time.

I stand by what I say, Iraq and Canada don't mix.

 

[Figure11]

This topic reminds me of a quote in a recent Macleans article which stated that "...here in Canada we condemn terrorism, we don't fight it." Notwithstanding, the efforts of the brave men and women in Afghanistan, it seems to have a ring of truth about it.

 

[Infanteer]

It's good to see the cheerleaders are cheering on the fact that the team is on the sidelines.

 

[childs56]

its really funny that we pick and chose wars that we like and dislike. based on our personalle opinions. i for one beleive that Iraq one of many countries had to be sorted out. this was for the security of the region. as much as we talk about the fight for oil yes it is but this oil also means stability for the rest of western world. we have to realize that we as soldier saliors and airmen never want to go to war or have to go peace keep. this means their was a break down of peace and stability somewhere. this also means that our own people are going to die.(friends family) I can tell you right now that had the Cn tower in Toronto or the Petro Can bldg's in Calgary been targetd then we would want all the support of our allies. i will say the attitudes of the average Canadian citizen is leave it alone, this may be why we have some of the largest terrost cells in western civ. we have neglected these problems for years now and the only reason why these terroist have yet to do anything to us in Canada is that they need a place to get money and training, hmm Canada looks good. we turn a blind eye to all our problems externall and domestic. i think the biggest thing we could do to supprot our allies in the war for terrosim is to get all our's out of our country. we are right now kepping a guy locked up in a prison who was known to had formal traiing in a al qida training camp. it seems like he wont be deported. we need to get tough on this situation. all of you peace loving and new age soldiers need to rethink why you are in the military. and about the freedoms that were made for, just the sacrifices that are being made by our allies soldiers around the globe. just my 2 cents worth

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Pte NoMercy....I might be misunderstanding your post but the Japanese that were taken hostage were journalists and aid workers not members of the Japanese Self Defence Forces also I have always seen Japanese military personnel armed with Type 89 assault rifles (5.56mm) and not small caliber smgs. I would be interested in seeing a source for you info. Thanks

 

[Figure11]

It's good to see the cheerleaders are cheering on the fact that the team is on the sidelines.

Not sure if this one was aimed at me. If it was could you please elaborate? Thanks

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Ex-Dragoon,

You're right!

I looked it up agian and they were a bunch of civis and not GDSF...sorry. :-[

However, this doesn't affect my point much as these people were taken hostage and threatened to be burned alive unless the Japanese Ground Domestic Security Force was withdrawn from Iraq, who were on a water purifying mission and a purely defensive force.

In fact, this even makes my point stronger as the hostages were not even soldiers, but became a target just because they were Japanese civilians....do we want Canadian civilians to be held hostage or killed because they became a target by being Canadian?
Keep in mind that Japanese diplomats have already been killed in Iraq too.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/19/eng20031219_130766.shtml

The fact of the matter is, the extremists don't care who you are or what you're doing in Iraq, despite good intentions, and have absolutely no problem attacking and killing peacekeepers, UN staff and civilians.

As for the weapons issue, yes they have various 5.56 mm weapons and allot of other good kit too. However, the weapons that they were sent to Iraq with were smaller SMG's, at least that's what the CNN report I saw informed me about.

I'm still looking for a better article, but the one I'm providing has some interesting pictures...notice how they armored jeeps have a spot for a high caliber machine gun? It's not there...because they are carrying small caliber weapons for defensive purposes only. Allot of articles are simply focusing on how they're military has changed and how a shot in conflict wasn't fired since WW2.

http://www.talkingproud.us/International011704.html

 

[Figure11]

Ex-Dragoon,


The fact of the matter is, the extremists don't care who you are or what you're doing in Iraq, despite good intentions, and have absolutely no problem attacking and killing peacekeepers, UN staff and civilians.

You are absolutely right. Nor would they, I suspect have any qualms about killing westwesternerseigners/kuffars/infidels, in any other part of the world in their quest to return the world to the 8th century, while armed with 21st century weapons.

 

[Infanteer]

Not sure if this one was aimed at me. If it was could you please elaborate? Thanks

No, quite the opposite; I agree with the quote you supplied.  My barb was aimed at those who applaud the fact that we condemn terrorism rather than fight it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Pte NoMercy

Is it your position then that nothing should be done?

That the world at large should stand back and let "extremists" (your word) impose their will on the inhabitants of Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo...........?

That the aged, infirm and young of the world should be left to the tender mercies of those that believe in racial purity, religious purity, ideological purity....?

You do sound as if you subscribe to the modern notion of moral relativism.  Both sides have a point, I can't decide, therefore I will do nothing.

Or alternatively are you coming from the position that the only reason to fight is to protect yourself?

If that is the case do I assume that you see no need for expeditionary forces and instead we should do away with the 48th, the militia and the reserves and pump all the money into a beefed up RCMP and Coast Guard?

I am just confused here and seeking clarification ???

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Kirkhill,

I simply firmly believe that Canadian military involvement in Iraq should not happen.

We have seen examples on TV, and other media as well as on this site, as to what happens to people trying to stabilize the country over there.

I feel, that if we enter Iraq for whatever reason, Canadian citizens will get killed, in my opinion, for no reason at all. Iraq is not in our military interest. The coalition that is in Iraq right now is taking care of that job and if they believe in a non UN approved liberation, then more power to them.

I mentioned before, that if the situation in Iraq was run by the UN and not the US, then I would be more for the idea for our soldiers going in to help.

I feel that if we enter Iraq, we become a target, like all the coalition countries that are in the country right now. Remember what happened to Spain? Do we want that to happen in Canada?

You give examples of â Å“Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo,â ? I don't need to tell you that we've been already there...but we were there under the flag of the UN for the most part now weren't we? Even when we went to Dessert Storm, we were with the UN too. I feel that going to Iraq to be under American command and not the United Nations is not what we stand or believe in. Hence, why we didn't go.

I see the purpose of expeditionary forces, when the PPCLI went to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban, and then how we began to bring life back to normal there. I believe in it because it is a UN operation, not some coalition that decides what they want to do when they want to.

I realize there are gung ho people who want to go to Iraq, but think of this; Is it really beneficial for us? If anything, we would become a target, if not more so, just like all the other countries that came into Iraq with good intentions.  Is it worht the lives of Canadian soldiers and civilians ?

You have to pick your battles, yes you do. You can't just storm off some place because you feel it's time to fight terrorism. If Canada wants to help terrorism, it should continue/greatly improve to work on its screening and investigations on people coming into this country to ensure we are not harboring terrorists. It should also continue its work around the world in Afghanistan and everywhere else in the Middle East with the UN illustrating to them that we are against terrorism and that we also work in conjunction with the UN.

If Iraq becomes a UN operation, then Canada should be involved in it. The PM already said that we would send over supplies and humanitarian aid to help the stabilization regardless whether it's UN or not.

People should settle down and look at this realistically, Canada can help Iraq, things are already being done to help by other countries and, eventually us. Going to Iraq without the UN under a NATO alliance is just asking for trouble.

There is a fight in Iraq, but it isn't ours.

 

[48Highlander]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.  Somehow I don't see Osama and his ilk caring one way or the other wether a military operation is run by the UN or NATO.  The insurgents in Iraq right now will target our troops no matter whose flag they go in under.  And I do not beleive that we should sit on our asses simply because if we interfere we might become targets of terrorists.  If we do nothing and the terrorists win, we will eventually become their targets anyway.  Giving up because of fear has never been the Canadian way.

 

[jswift872]

i agree to a certain extent, we will let the terrorists win by doing nothing, but also we are very under staffed if you will, and it would not be a good idea to go in such a touchy place in these messed up times. know what i mean?

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

48Highlander,

I NEVER said anything about giving up or doing nothing in the fight against terrorism.

I believe we shouldn't go to Iraq unless it is a UN a mission. I could care less what the terrorists think to be honest. As a country, we support UN operations and should continue to do so. If we're to become a target, at least let's be in Iraq with the UN as oppose to the US.

I agree with the point you made about NATO and UN flags and them not caring who you are, I've been pushing that point for a while.

I believe that the Iraq campaign does not have the conditions for a Canadian operation as it obliviously looks like a lot of different things to different people.

Canada should continue to fight terrorism and should never be afraid, but we shouldn't go to a place to appease someone or to fight the good fight without proper conditions and terms. It's not for the terrorists, it's for US. Going under the UN in my opinion, would make it appear less imperialistic and fascist, I know the terrorists don't see a difference, but at least the civilized world would and we will still MAINTAIN OUR VALUES

 

[Infanteer]

I feel that if we enter Iraq, we become a target, like all the coalition countries that are in the country right now. Remember what happened to Spain? Do we want that to happen in Canada?

Do you feel Canada is not a terrorist target because we decided not to go to Iraq.   If you do, you are incredibly naive.   The fact that we speak English, drive fancy cars, operate under a free market, and believe in liberal democracy has put us in the cross-hairs of terrorist organizations, Iraq or no Iraq.

You give examples of â Å“Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo,â ? I don't need to tell you that we've been already there...but we were there under the flag of the UN for the most part now weren't we? Even when we went to Dessert Storm, we were with the UN too. I feel that going to Iraq to be under American command and not the United Nations is not what we stand or believe in. Hence, why we didn't go.

Kosovo wasn't sanctioned by the UN, but it didn't stop us from interceding.   Can you reconcile that with what you believe in?

I see the purpose of expeditionary forces, when the PPCLI went to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban, and then how we began to bring life back to normal there. I believe in it because it is a UN operation, not some coalition that decides what they want to do when they want to.

I don't recall seeing many blue helmets in Tora Bora.   Operation Apollo was a combat mission led by the United States, and we were under the operational control of a brigade of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).   Once again. you seem to have an unclear idea of how Canada's military has been deployed.

I realize there are gung ho people who want to go to Iraq, but think of this; Is it really beneficial for us? If anything, we would become a target, if not more so, just like all the other countries that came into Iraq with good intentions.   Is it worht the lives of Canadian soldiers and civilians ?

Although I believe there are flaws in the current US strategy, I am awaiting to see what sort of changes will follow the June handover to the Interim Government.   However, with our limited resources, I think a deployment of Canadian soldiers to Iraq would have to be carefully looked at.   It would be beneficial if it supported the overall goal of behaviour change in the regimes of the Middle East that support terrorism.   I don't think it would be to our advantage for Canadian Army units to get thrown into the fray of Baghdad, al Najaf or Fallujah.

However, because we cannot provide the manpower to the effort doesn't excuse us from turning our backs on our two best friends.

You have to pick your battles, yes you do. You can't just storm off some place because you feel it's time to fight terrorism. If Canada wants to help terrorism, it should continue/greatly improve to work on its screening and investigations on people coming into this country to ensure we are not harboring terrorists. It should also continue its work around the world in Afghanistan and everywhere else in the Middle East with the UN illustrating to them that we are against terrorism and that we also work in conjunction with the UN.
If Iraq becomes a UN operation, then Canada should be involved in it. The PM already said that we would send over supplies and humanitarian aid to help the stabilization regardless whether it's UN or not.

You seem to see the UN as the great white hope in all of this.   I think you're setting yourself up for a dissapointment.

MAINTAIN OUR VALUES

And what would those be?

 

[muskrat89]

Is this the same UN that has been embezzling millions of dollars in the last 10 years, under the guise of oil-for-food, etc. ?  Ahh - that's a noble cause.

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

I'll give you that Infanteer, no problem.

But was not Canadian involvement approved by the UN as well, often the UN doesn't want to condone a conflict and wars but they do quietly support them...isn't that what happened in Afghanistan? That's why there were no blue helmets, just as in Kosovo too, and before that, in Somalia.

Also don't patronize me about the â Å“fancy carâ ? ideology as that is basic argument as to why terrorists hate us, everyone knows that. The fact of the matter is, I rather have them hate me because I live better then they do, as oppose to us being involved in Iraq without the UN.

As for me thinking the UN is some kind of â Å“great hopeâ ? I didn't think of it that way at all. My whole point of the UN launching an operation in Iraq is that it would suit Canada's values far more then marching off with the Americans.

Are you saying that you want to ignore what this country stands for? The values that made us one of the greatest countries in the world? Going to Iraq without the UN would not only be out of our character, but also against our values.