NATO would be willing to listen if Iraq asks for help

[Infanteer]

I'll give you that Infanteer, no problem.

Give me what?

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.

So in other words, the support of Britain and the US is not good enough, yet the support of France and Germany is required?

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.

You didn't read my post.   I said Iraq or no Iraq, they will still hate and target Canadians.   Wishing it weren't so isn't a good way to determine foreign policy.

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.

Your whole theory of Canada's war on terror seems to revolve around the UN.   Like I said before, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment.

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.

And what would those be?

 

[48Highlander]

Sorry, but I stopped beleiving in the UN after General Delaire came home with post-traumatic stress disoreder.  The UN stopped Canadian soldiers from doing the right thing then...and I don't beleive that we can depend on them to tell us what the right thing to do is now.  UN approval WOULD make us look better in the forum of "public opinion", but we don't need it, and I don't want it.

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Yes the UN is an looked upon as American and superpower tool, allot of the time, and it has, and continues to foul up.

However, just because certain people cheat and don't follow the rules within the United Nations game, doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to their level. We need things like the UN to make way for better organizations; the UN wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the League of Nations prior to it.

Also not needing the UN? Do you throw away an entire police force because it has a few bad cops? No, you clean the system and make it work to as it was designed to

I'm also well aware of General Delaire's situation and it pissed me off quite a bit. This wasn't the only time the UN didn't prevent genocide, remember Pol Pot?

Canada's values and identity closely follow those ideals of the UN, hence when I go on and on about the United Nations on this post I'm well aware of the corruption, favoritism and bureaucratic stupidity that plagues the UN.

I simply believe that if Canada did go to Iraq it should be under those terms and values that a true UN believes in and still enforces.

Also, Infanteer, you seem to do a good job disemboweling my posts, some nice work and even better points.

Let me ask you a question to stir things up a bit. You were asking as to what I thought were to be Canadian vales and character....I'm interested in what you think those are.

 

[NavyGrunt]

So in other words, the support of Britain and the US is not good enough, yet the support of France and Germany is required?
[

I really think this is key.......we can say we disagree. We can say we don't believe. But we have to look at who we are throwing our hats in with. France and Germany over America and the Brits? Anywhere those 2 countries are Canadians should be as well. There are few countries that espouse the same morals and values as Canada. Our way of life must be preserved. Divided we fall.

:fifty: by the way......why is the cocking lever on the left side of this .50 cal???[/quote]

 

[Pieman]

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  

Canada's values and identity closely follow those ideals of the UN

I am having trouble understanding these points.   What is the difference between our responsibility to help the UN mandate and the NATO mandate? Canada is a member of both these organizations and I think we believe in both of them. If NATO asked us for our help to sort out a bad situation, I think it is against Canadian morals to say no. Since when does Canada turn down a plea for help?

Not only that, I believe it is taking our fate into our own hands by stepping up to the fight. To say that it is best to not get involved because that way no Canadians will get hurt is wishful thinking at best. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there is a fair number of Canadians in Iraq now working for oil companies as workers.

Consider this very possible situation:   What if one of our own gets captured with Iraqies threatening to cut off his head. And we cry 'No! He is a Canadian and we are not involved' and their response is 'He is from the West, he is in our country, and he is an Infandel ' and then they cut his head off and show it on the net. What would Canadian reaction be?

(That situation did almost happen once but, thank God, we were able to secure his safe release. We were lucky that time.)

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.

What's the difference? Hate is Hate.

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Pieman,

My point is that NATO is military alliance while the UN is more aimed at more humanitarian roles which sometimes endorse military involvement when necessary.

Also, we are stepping up and fighting against terrorisim, that's why we went to Afghanistan and took part in operations in Tora Bora and launching efforts such as operation Anaconda where our troops blew away the coalition with our combat effectiveness...not to mention the Taliban as well. We have done more then enough to answer the call and still are showing responsibility and Canadian vigor by being in Afghanistan to this day and successfully making it a better place to live.

I am aware that there are private civilian workers in Iraq, my buddy's friend is going, he was granted a security contract. I'm also aware that relief agencies and humanitarian volunteer workers are there, not to mention the hippies who made human chains around certain buildings prior to the attack.

Also, Canada has said â Å“Noâ ? to NATO, and people who need help, quite a few times. A good example off the top of my head is the Boemar missile situation in which the US were pushing and pressuring us to buy these missiles. We eventually gave in and did, and then refused to buy the nuclear warheads which then rendered the missiles, and the millions of dollars for the program, to be useless. Just because NATO does something and we don't, it does not mean that we loose the ability to step up and fight, if we dropped out of NATO altogether, then you would have a point and I'd agree with you on that.

Now to your scenario, yes if a Canadian was killed and made tapes of etc then yes the response would be â Å“Oh, no!â ? That's the same response that all the countries who had their own people taken hostage or killed. The Canadian reaction would be anger towards the actions obviously but would not want further involvement in Iraq because they would feel that they going there would be just adding gas into the fire.

As for â Å“Hate is hate,â ? that is a good point and I agree that they hate us (Westerners) no matter what. Let me give you an example, and people don't analyze it to death but just think about it, â Å“Do you think that the terrorists hate Norway the same way they hate the US?â ?

I certainly don't think so, I haven't heard Bin Laden mention Norway, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Iceland in any of his funniest home videos mention specifically that he was going to attack them.

The point I'm trying to make about the UN is that regardless of it being obviously not in the best working condition, Canada should still follow the ideologies and play by its rules despite not having the other teams/countries playing fair. Canada isn't known/ stereotyped as a asshole like the US now is it?


Canada, I believe, does not stomp off to war with their friends just because they feel like it for whatever just cause those countries may have. We enter combat zones and wars because we feel strongly about them and more recently, go into where humanitarian aid is needed to help people that can not defend themselves and to protect the innocent from an oppressive and violent identified government or enemy. This is more or less the same format of the UN, in unofficial language, is it not?

Going to Iraq with the UN is not so much as recognition for them/terrorists, as it is for us. Do we want to be put further more into the same category as to how these people view the USA? They hate us, but why give them more a reason?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yes,
They hate Norway the same way they hate us, it just doesn't make the same headlines, same with your other example countries.
Remember the people doing these things[extremists] even hate other Muslims, who do you think is taking the brunt of the car bombs in Iraq?  
You base your arguments on a logical assumption, not realizing your not dealing with logical people.
They hate because they hate and it is a small minority getting the headlines. I wonder what the other 99.99% of Muslims are doing today?   Just trying to get by like everyone else, wishing they could live in peace.

 

[Guardian]

Placing our hope in the UN to solve international problems is dangerously naive at best.

The UN's track record at dealing with conflict has been abysmal. Look at the Middle East (five wars and two intifadas later), the former Yugoslavia before NATO took over, Rwanda, the Congo, and Somalia. Look at Cyprus after 30 years of peacekeeping - still divided. Look at India and Pakistan - not only still at each other's throats and still shooting at each other, but now both armed with nukes - despite UN observer and assistance missions.

In the case of Iraq, it was a UN-sanctioned force that freed Kuwait in 1991, but I'll point out that Saddam had ignored the UN resolutions telling him to leave for months prior to the assault. Afterwards, the UN passed resolution after resolution after resolution condemning Saddam for lack of cooperation on WMD, but never at any point communicated any resolve (read: consequences for noncompliance) to see them obeyed.

This is the same UN that appoints such upstanding international citizens as Libya and Zimbabwe to its Human Rights apparatus.

Someone already mentioned the oil-for-food program. 

In short, I wouldn't trust the UN to supervise a daycare. To say our support for the UN is based on shared values (again, Libya and Zimbabwe?) is dead wrong, as it should be painfully obvious that the UN has no consistent values, and no spine to give significance to any that it might have. The UN is a useful international debating forum and relief agency, but it is irrelevant, as presently structured, as a security organization.

Thoughts?

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Guardian,

Those are some great major points, I'm also aware of the UN crappy track record, but does the US and their military involvement have a better one?

So you're saying it better to go into a coalition (American) that is run by a country that has an equally if not more blood on its hands then the UN?

The UN is hampered by bureaucratic fumbling, favoritism, corruption and all that other stuff which I aforementioned in previous posts that I'm well aware of.

As a result, they messed up quite a bit and mission that were supposed to bring peace, ended up in disaster. In my opinion, the USA with all its conflicts and operations whether in the eye of the media or covertly in the Cold War, have just as a bad track record if not worse if you consider the fact that one country fouled up so many places and killed so many people around the world.

The coalition fouled up in Iraq already! They launched an entire conflict for WMD's that haven't been found, or possibly didn't even exist. Even if there were WMD's, in my previous posts I mentioned how Iraq's nuke program wouldn't even be cable of launching one outside of the Middle East.

There are countries around the world that also have nuclear capabilities far greater then Iraq and are pretty shady countries too, they haven't been liberated by the coalition yet have they?

Keep in mind, allot of the problems in the world today started because of the USA. Do I need to remind you where Saddam got his initial WMD's? Or where Osama and his freedom fighters got their special forces training and thousands of Stinger missiles?  Or why Africa became a war zone as a result of high caliber weapons provided to them?

You successfully argued your point on how the UN isn't up to the job, tell me how the USA is better, OTHER then military superiority, to solve the Iraq problem.

Also how it is a good idea to join a coalition of now extremely hated and looked down upon countries who are in Iraq because of these still not found WMD's?

It's quite evident that everyone here believes the UN is ineffective, and I always agreed with all of you.

My point is that I rather go in with a series of naive fundamental humanitarian values and a screwed up organization with a crappy track record, in oppose to an aggressive, and almost imperialistic, country with also a really bad track record that is launching yet another coalition on another country and people.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well you do that and first time they start shooting at you and your watching your buddies getting picked off remember it's ok because we're doing it for the UN...........oh wait hey Mr." aggressive and almost imperialistic country",could you save our asses, please.?

 

[muskrat89]

The coalition fouled up in Iraq already! They launched an entire conflict for WMD's that haven't been found, or possibly didn't even exist. Even if there were WMD's, in my previous posts I mentioned how Iraq's nuke program wouldn't even be cable of launching one outside of the Middle East.

I guess you didn't get the memo:

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

Launching weapons outside of the Mideast was not the issue so much as their availability to terrorists, and the Iraqi Government's possible support of terrorist activities....

 

[Infanteer]

My point is that I rather go in with a series of naive fundamental humanitarian values and a screwed up organization with a crappy track record, in oppose to an aggressive, and almost imperialistic, country with also a really bad track record that is launching yet another coalition on another country and people.

:

You're not doing a very good job on convincing the panel that you understand much about anything....

(PS: change your screen name, you're too delicate to be using the monkier "No Mercy".)

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

If we're not doing it for the UN who are we doing it for then? The United States? Iraq is their cause and their problem. Remember when they thought they could handle the situation themselves and wanted no one to steal the spot light?

Also, if you read my posts prior, you'd see that one of my major arguments was NOT to send our troops to Iraq to avoid such horrific scenarios as UN mandates have screwed our guys on more then one occasion.

I don't agree with us being there under the UN or with the USA, I just believe that if we have to choose; the UN is the lesser of two evils.

Why should we send our guys over there when a year ago the USA told everyone, including the UN to screw off, and stormed into Iraq. Then when things got dicey they decided to change their mind and humbly ask for help, disguising it as â Å“the responsibility of the free world to help Iraq.â ? They had their chance, for Canada's help in my opinion, now they want help on their terms and when they want it? Do they expect us to come running like an obedient lackey?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now I realize that you have no real argument, your only logic is your hatred of the US. Your quote about telling everyone to screw off is just asinine, they asked anyone that were SUPPOSED to be their friends to help out and instead Cretin booked it.
Show anyone a line that was ever used that said they wouldn't accept any help. JUST ONE!

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

To Muskrat and your response all I have to say is HOW UNFORTUNATE.

And yes I did get the memo, long ago.

A superpower nation that does nothing about boasting about their technology and satellites didn't see the mean terrorists move highly radioactive war heads out of the country? I think some one must have been asleep at the security monitor then?

Maybe that's why they are no more WMD's in Iraq...because he shipped them all away!

Then why launch the war on Iraq when they have no more WMD's? Where are they? We better go and attack the other countries that bought these weapons and components off Saddam now shouldn't we! Where does it end?

If you're sending men to die in a war that has a major emphases on WMD's you better be sure they are there or otherwise you end up looking pretty silly wouldn't you say? I believe that's why there's a huge investigation being launched on the CIA and FBI to find out where they got this intelligence that launched the entire war on this shoddy intell.

As for Infateer, You haven't answered my previous question. Are you stalling?

Not only that, you just shred my posts apart and don't seem do anything else? Where's YOUR proof other then your witty little sarcastic remarks?

Furthermore, it would be nice to hear what you think as oppose to your one liners that just state â Å“you are wrong,â ? how am I wrong? Shut me up and enlighten me because you're not doing a very good job at voicing your argument properly. At least other people who disagree write more then just a sentence stating that I'm wrong with some substance.

As for my name, I think No Mercy fits me as I have done nothing but consistently argue and bitch at my point.

Ether you're very ignorant or unable to see the fact that I have demonstrated a very realistic overview of the situation and given many points to consider.

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Bruce Monkhouse,

Sir,

If you can't see a point to my argument, and feel that my logic is just anti-American ramblings then I have no reason debate with you. 

I think what I have contributed to this forum is something that has far more substance then a pointless argument with an anti-American agenda; in fact, I've been pro-Canadian as I am looking out for our interests before we decide to head off to war. If you don't look after yourself first, then no one will.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and I can appreciate that except you throw quotes out but have no facts to back them up. Can you answer the question in my last post?

 

[Infanteer]

A superpower nation that does nothing about boasting about their technology and satellites didn't see the mean terrorists move highly radioactive war heads out of the country? I think some one must have been asleep at the security monitor then?

It's a big world out there, and it's hard to track every single truck in Iraq.   Do you honestly believe that US intelligence is that exact?

Maybe that's why they are no more WMD's in Iraq...because he shipped them all away!

Why not?   I would venture Syria to be a good starting point.   He's clearly demonstrated that he's had WMD by using them before; do you think a dictator just up and listened to the UN, that aegis of Canadian values, and decided to get rid of his WMDs?

Then why launch the war on Iraq when they have no more WMD's? Where are they? We better go and attack the other countries that bought these weapons and components off Saddam now shouldn't we! Where does it end?

If you're sending men to die in a war that has a major emphases on WMD's you better be sure they are there or otherwise you end up looking pretty silly wouldn't you say? I believe that's why there's a huge investigation being launched on the CIA and FBI to find out where they got this intelligence that launched the entire war on this shoddy intell.

Disarming a tinpot dictator of his NBC capabilities in a region of strategic interest for the West was one of the many reasons for invading Iraq; the presence of WMD's and their no-show for the Coalition have simply been in the media spotlight due to the headlines it can provide for those opposed to the current administration.

As for Infateer, You haven't answered my previous question. Are you stalling?

What question, that vague little quip you threw at the end of one of your blustering statements about what I felt Canadian values were?   I figured it to be rhetorical, since it was so wide open and didn't really pertain to the debate enough to warrant the effort.   Do you think a system of universal health insurance is one of the reasons we decided to man the post at the UN and tell the Americans they were on their own?

Not only that, you just shred my posts apart and don't seem do anything else? Where's YOUR proof other then your witty little sarcastic remarks?

I simply reply to the innaccurate and unfounded statements that you seem to insist on repeatedly telling us.   As others may attest, I've stated my position more than enough times, and don't feel I have to give an explanation to every kid who comes here trumpeting "UN, BUSH LIED, AMERICA SUCKS!!!" because it happens quite frequently.

Furthermore, it would be nice to hear what you think as oppose to your one liners that just state â Å“you are wrong,â ? how am I wrong? Shut me up and enlighten me because you're not doing a very good job at voicing your argument properly. At least other people who disagree write more then just a sentence stating that I'm wrong with some substance.

Ask and ye shall receive.   So far, you've just recycled some silly point about sticking with the UN, which nobody has agreed with.   Since your obviously not doing well in debating the matter, put forward a topic that pertains to the debate at hand (which appears to be Canada's interests in the UN as opposed to the US).

As for my name, I think No Mercy fits me as I have done nothing but consistently argue and bitch at my point.

Yeah, I noticed the argue and bitch part, but I think I side with Bruce when I say I'm still looking for your point.   Maybe Pte NoPoint or Pte Hotair would be apt.   Try and provide evidence to back up your claims, because the fact that no one here has yet to agree with you should maybe tell you that your running on fumes.

Ether you're very ignorant or unable to see the fact that I have demonstrated a very realistic overview of the situation and given many points to consider.

Sure.   If all you can do to respond to my criticism of your theory is to label me ignorant and unaware of your true understanding, go ahead; I think you got a future career in the UN secured.

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

Well answer this then,

Do you believe that Canadian forces going to Iraq would be a good idea?

I'm all ears.

Also, the opinion of me being some kid yelling about America sucks is getting old. America has blood on its hands for the conflicts that they launched before and that is a well known fact. I am not anti American nor some flag burning hippie. I have relatives in the states and American friends. I am all for the fight against terrorism but think that Canada should maintain its role in Afghanistan. I simply believe that following the examples of the USA would not be a good idea for Canada. That is all.

Since apparently everyone disagrees with me about my opinion, and I've argued my point to hell and back, I'm just curious as to why Canadian involvement in Iraq would be beneficial for us and why everyone here thinks we should go. 

 

[Pieman]

Do you believe that Canadian forces going to Iraq would be a good idea?

If the UN, NATO, or yes even the US came to us formally requesting our help, then I think we should go. It is our responsibility to our allies and it is our responsibility to do everthing in our power to prevent further destabilisation. You argued that the US caused this situation despite the UN objection, well, the situation has changed. Maybe the US did make a mistake by going in there, but is it really in our best interests to say no and refuse to help them? I don't think so. I think it is a good idea since it is preventing a bad situation from going to worse.

Your main argument that going with the UN is better than going with NATO is really a matter of opinion. I think you are right that most Canadians would be behind the idea of going to Iraq under the UN, but that is mainly because the majority of the public sees our forces primary role as a peace keeping force, and will support just about any peace keeping role. If Canada went under NATO, going to Iraq would be much less popular with the Canadian population, but it is a matter of opinion if we should go under NATO or not.   Just because it is not as popular, does not mean we should ignore a request for our help.

I simply believe that following the examples of the USA would not be a good idea for Canada

I don't think going to help the US sort out a bad situation is following their lead at all. It is simply helping an ally clean up a problem.

Since apparently everyone disagrees with me about my opinion, and I've argued my point to heck and back

I think we could all be arguing till we are blue in the face on many of these points, as really most are based on  individual opinions from both sides of these arguments. Unless someone could outline some highly probable pro/cons of going to Iraq, we would have more to discuss about besides our personal opinion the matter.