logo du MAECI partenariat Logo de byDesign eLab, un centre indépendant de recherche, développement et production en forums électroniques pour l'élaboration des politiques, qui a vu le jour en 1997 dans le cadre du programme McLuhan de l'Université de Toronto
Accueil du MAECI Plan du site Aide Politiques Partenariat Commentaires Netcast English
 
Bienvenue
Message du Ministre
Document de réflexion
Répondre aux questions
Réponses
Forum de discussion
 

Conclusion: Le monde que nous souhaitons

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

Ce forum est bilingue, et les participants peuvent rédiger leurs commentaires dans la langue de leur choix.

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: Deidden

Date: 2003-03-08 20:43:23


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035778836419&call_pageid=970599119419

I seriously suggest reading this article - it gives us a glimpse of things yet to come. I believe we should not involve ourselves militarily with the war, but instead, take a more indirect route and consider providing extensive, intensive aid to Iraqi civilians.

I have serious doubts the U.S. will provide any humanitarian aid whatsoever. As George W. Bush has said so himself, "We are peacemakers, not peacekeepers."

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-10 16:49:08


Just to point out that in his press conference, Bush made explicit reference to the oil-for-food depots and the preparations for the humanitarian crisis that will follow any invasion.

I realise you might not be comfortable accepting his word, but it is his word.

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-10 23:13:43


Sure, just like he talked about rebuilding Afghanistan; Iran has provided more money than the USA.
Just like he said military targets in Afghanistan; Little too much so called "collateral damage" and mistaken targets for my liking; esp our Canadian soldiers. I trust Mr Bush as much as he trusts Saddam.

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-11 16:04:38


Your point on Afghanistan is a good one. There is a great danger of that country falling off the radar screeen and slipping back into chaos (which its not far from now).

But Canada has not been very loud in its desire to see Afghan aid flow from all taps (US & Europe). It would be nice to see our foreign affairs minister being more active on this front.

Also, its a bit unfair to blame Bush for the fallen Canadian soldiers. I'm sure you'll agree with that, though.

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-11 23:02:47


He is commander-in -chief or the American army; is he not. I do not believe all the fault lies with the pilots that dropped the bomb. The problem lies in a lack of proper communications between troops. I believe,they may be the usual scape goats

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-13 16:29:33


Yes, he is commander in chief, but its still a stretch to lay the blame for friendly fire at his feet.

By that logic, every sea king disaster on Chretien's watch is his responsibility. (Which, I guess, you could argue as it was his decision to cancel there replacement...)

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: fatmomma

Date: 2003-03-13 22:20:08


Well if you remeber the Gulf war; the figures I read were 40% of americans killed were killed by friendly fire. As commander in chief; he should have addressed this real problem. Mr Bush and the top military brass should have acted to address this lack of acceptable communications between the fighting force units. Mr Cretien should ensure our fighting force is better protected if he wants them to act for him. We must improve our military. This could be accomplished financially by training them to perform coast guard duties and civil defense for natural or other disasters.

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-14 14:37:29


40% dead by friendly fire is a statistic which reveals how FEW the number of enemy-caused casualties there are. This statistic is misleading.

Otherwise, I take your point. Friendly fire must be eliminated as much as possible. So too, must we ensure our military is equipped to perform their missions as safely and securely as possible.

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: codc01

Date: 2003-03-14 04:18:39


I agree with you, Afghanistan has been forgotten, and i read in several papers Mr. Karzai asking for money regularly.

Was the promised money actually all delivered to Afghanistan? I truly don't believe so... I just *hope* that Canada at least delivered on its promise (I don't know if we actually pledged anything, did we?).

Also Canada is trying to participate in ISAF (the Afghan. stabilization force) -but there are serious problems - We require assistance from NATO for transport (our government won't purchase transport planes), as well as a field hospital. The big problem is that France (in this particular case i totally and utterly disagree with France) is blocking NATO, since they say NATO is for Europe only. (Even though NATO is for Europe only, i think NATO's mandate should be changed in my opinion)...

Also, seeing the lack of personal we have, i think this will be a further strain on our armed forces (I read somewhere we only have 5000 actual soldiers! I hope this is not true!?)

Regarding the blame on Bush regarding the friendly fire incident, Bush is not to blame at all, its not his job! - the pilots as well as the direct commanders are to blame.

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: Deidden

Date: 2003-03-29 00:50:04


Actually I believe we have approximately 60 000 soldiers (about 20 000 reserves).

However, it should be kept in mind that soldiers participating in operations are paid substantially more - in other words, the more soldiers participating in operations, the greater the strain on the defence budget.

Apparently, there is a significant lack in soldiers with specialised skills (i.e. medics, engineers, etc.), as well as officers. Hence, the increased incentives for new recruits at universities.

http://www.dnd.ca/

For more info regarding the Canadian Forces.

Personally, I find both NATO and the UN inadequate. Both must be reevaluated in light of the post Cold War and post 9/11 climate.

Lastly, I fail to see a connection between Bush and the 'friendly-fire' incident in Afghanistan.

However, we can criticize the president for sending the troops into the region in the first place, which draws us back to ideology: why did we commence military operations within the country in the first place?

Perhaps the defacing of ancient buddha statues in the region vexed Bush, a known art and archaeology enthusiast, beyond grief. Perhaps the human-rights violations (esp. against women) in the region was too terrible to tolerate. Perhaps the ruling Taliban gave the Al-Qaeda too much of a cover. Perhaps it eased fears over terrorists attacks. Perhaps it had a vital oil pipeline of great interest to a number of countries. Perhaps the U.S. (and some coalition members) just felt like bombing the hell out of a bunch of guys with Kalashnikovs.

Whatever the reason... it may be fleeting as we watch Afghanistan fall back into its dreadful war-torn state...

[p.s. I highly suspect that it is not oil interest, but archaeological interest that has provoked George W. Bush to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries are rich in archaeological data, including some of the world's first civilisations. Also, interestingly enough, both countries had little or no archaeological activity within recent decades. Seeing how many archaeologists are reaching the point of retirement, and many of them specialise in Near East and South West Asian civilisations, I suspect that archaeologists within the U.S. and U.K. used powerful lobbying groups such as the AAA (http://www.aaanet.org/) to pursuade both Bush and Blair to wage war. Sinister!]

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: codc01

Date: 2003-03-29 15:34:51


Yes, i go read the DND site regularly, but the number i was speaking about was the number of actual ground soldiers we have - how many infantry soldiers do we have? I read somewhere we had about only 5000... I have no idea if this is true or not.. ?

Répondre à ce message

Canadian involvement with Iraq

Participant: Deidden

Date: 2003-03-29 20:49:34


I'm not entirely certain. Apparently 24 000 CF personnel are 'deployable', so if you divide that three ways, we'd probably have approximately 8000 infantry. I'd imagine the number would be perhaps a bit higher.

But in the end, it's guess work...

Répondre à ce message