Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Canada Won't Go Without The Un

Iraq UN Coalition Canada

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 05:16 PM

Seems Canada is telling Bush no,

]http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?i...F-8BC645B66611]

[edit]fixed url[/edit]

Quote

Chrétien: We won't go to Iraq without UN approval

Mike Trickey and Janice Tibbetts
The Ottawa Citizen


Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien says Canada will not be part of the American-led "coalition of the willing" in a war against Iraq unless the United Nations authorizes military action.

After weeks of dodging questions from opposition leaders about Canada's position, Mr. Chrétien ended the fence-sitting and told MPs yesterday that if the Security Council refuses to authorize a war, the United States will have to do without the help of its closest ally and largest trading partner if it decides to pursue a military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein.

"We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing," he said in reply to a question from Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe.

"If (the Americans) want to go there all alone, they can go there all alone, but we say they must go with the authorization of the United Nations.

"If they don't, the international system of peace and security will probably be more destabilized than it need be."

Mr. Chrétien implored the U.S. to act within the framework of the UN last week at a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations in Chicago, saying that is the best way to ensure American and global security in the future.

"I am convinced that, given a proper chance, the United Nations will fulfil its obligations to the world community, that it will back up its principles with resolve," he said at the time.

Mr. Chrétien made the decision not to participate in an American-led coalition, which so far has about 20 members, after speaking on the weekend to six leaders of allied nations who are evenly divided on how to best force Iraq to comply with UN Resolution 1441 demanding that it disarm and to fully co-operate with inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction.

The leaders of France, Mexico and Russia counselled giving weapons inspections more time, while the leaders of Australia, Italy and Spain expressed their willingness to join the Americans if the UN does not authorize the "serious consequences" expressed in 1441 should Iraq not comply.

French President Jacques Chirac says his country will use its veto power to block any Security Council resolution authorizing war, but U.S. President George W. Bush says a new resolution, while "helpful," is not necessary.

"We don't need a second resolution. It's clear this guy (Saddam) could even care less about the first resolution. He's in total defiance," he told reporters at the White House.

UN diplomats are working on a new resolution, a draft of which is expected to be circulated today or tomorrow.

Canada has not been clear on what sort of military contribution it could make in the event of war, especially after committing last week to deploying about 3,000 troops to Afghanistan over a one-year period starting this summer. Such a large deployment would leave few soldiers available for other tasks, though Canadian naval and air forces are in the Gulf area now as part of an international anti-terrorist operation. Strategic analysts say it is likely those forces would simply be retasked with responsibility for the war in Iraq.

International Development Minister Susan Whelan said yesterday that Canada is considering a new request from the UN for contingency planning for humanitarian aid for Iraq. Canada has already pledged $1.7 million as part of the UN's original $37-million package. The UN now says an additional $123 million is needed and is seeking about $4 million from Canada.

American plans for a potential two-front war with Iraq also hit a speed bump yesterday.

The Turkish parliament had originally planned to vote to accept the possible deployment of at least 20,000 American troops, but Prime Minister Abdullah Gul backed off the promise.

"We are not going to the parliament tomorrow," the prime minister said on Monday. "We have some concerns on economic and political issues."

Mr. Bush remained confident a solution to the issue could be reached, declaring that Turkey had "no better friend than the American government."

Mr. Bush also made it clear he would not be stopped by anti-war protests around the world on the weekend and allies who are pressing him to wait until he has the firm backing of the United Nations.

"War is my last choice, but the risk of doing nothing is an even worse option," said Mr. Bush. "I owe it to the American people to secure this country. I will do so."

Mr. Bush intends to take a proposed second resolution against Iraq to the UN, but it probably will not be until at least next week. Although the wording of his draft proposal has not been publicly finalized, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said it would be "simple and straightforward."

In Europe, skeptical allies are pushing for extending UN weapons searches in Iraq and France insists that Iraq must be given time to disarm.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the strongest ally of the U.S., said he still wants to see another UN security council resolution before any military action is taken.

Mr. Bush, mindful of the enormous pressure Mr. Blair faces at home, praised the prime minister as a "courageous leader" who "understands that Saddam Hussein is a risk."

Edited by Godeskian, 19 February 2003 - 05:17 PM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#2 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 09:53 AM

Heh. No comments at all, even though we have a number of Canadians here. :)

Well, I support our Prime Minister on this. It was a good decision. If the UN says go, we should go, but no vigilante actions.
Per aspera ad astra

#3 Nureek

Nureek

    Nureek of Squrlookal out of Hanunga by Rotut

  • Islander
  • 3,482 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 10:39 AM

Yet another reason I wanna run across the border and become a Canadian.  

Go Canada!!!!

*runs away quickly before Ascroft catchs her :ninja:

#4 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 10:40 AM

yeah, i was beginning to think this topic would just be ignored or forgotten.

guess it isn't as newsworthy as i thought

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#5 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 10:46 AM

I appreciate your posting it here, Gode - but Canadians are (for the most part) completely uninterested  in our own politics. (Which is probably why Chrétien has been in power for so long.  :p )

It is very interesting, tho. Thanks for posting it.
Per aspera ad astra

#6 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 10:52 AM

Heh, it's one of the many, many things i've always liked about Canadians

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#7 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,553 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 06:21 PM

Well of course Chretien is saying this, now.  He still hasn't figured out what his legacy is to leave behind as prime minister, so he's still not intent on committing things that would *make* the voting populace care enough to do something about it.

(Sorry, just a bit cynical about the whole Canadian political structure.)

Honestly, to me, this is a great bit of news.  It means for once we're not the 51st state. ;)  :p
Stay hungry.

Stay foolish.

#8 FlatlandDan

FlatlandDan

    Sophisticate

  • Islander
  • 8,823 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 07:11 PM

I've read about this a while ago (not that long ago) and all I could do that smiles.

Chretien has made one of the best moves he's ever made for Canada.

Sorry...distracted by Abel Ledrone.

-Dan

:ninja:
My candle burns at both its ends;
It will not last the night;
But oh, my foes, and oh, my friends --
It gives a lovely light."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay

#9 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 07:31 PM

Quote

Canada has not been clear on what sort of military contribution it could make in the event of war, especially after committing last week to deploying about 3,000 troops to Afghanistan over a one-year period starting this summer.

That's why.

We won't go in unless it's cost-effective to do so.

And right now the most cost-effective thing to do is stay the hell out unless the UN needs us.

It's not a "coalition of the willing" by any means.

It's a coalition of those who can pay the cover charge.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#10 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 February 2003 - 02:06 AM

I should really stay out of this thread but here goes.  First off the choice doesn't surprise me at all.  And really Canada shouldn't be running all over the globe when it can't even fulfill it's obligations within it's own territory.

Quote

Hawk: We won't go in unless it's cost-effective to do so.

The Canadian Armed Forces are so gutted right now that nothing is cost effective for them.

The Canadian Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force can't even make the basic requirements for defense/monitoring of her territorial waters.  Mounting any type of operation including rescue operations has become a joke. Canadian citizens have died in their territorial waters while awaiting rescue from assets that weren't there to save them.  If it were the United States a USCG cutter, C-130, or helicopter would have snagged them out of the water.  In most First World Nations rescue personnel of one kind or another would have been arrived to rescue those people.

The following story* details just a small bit of the problem Canada has.  It's a sad state of affairs that Canada's maritime surveillance capability has fallen to the level where US Merchant vessels are the ones spotting odd things in their waters.  Then the Canadian Military has nothing to dispatch to investigate or anyway to check.  They have no crew for the MCDVs and no parts to keep the aircraft in the air.  Apparently the Victoria is supposed to be doing the patrol duty but let's not get into the status of Canada's submarine force or the logic of a single SSK for coast patrol work.  You might as well build minefields.    

*Mystery Ships spotted off BC Coast
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#11 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 21 February 2003 - 02:14 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 20 2003, 06:08 PM, said:

The Canadian Armed Forces are so gutted right now that nothing is cost effective for them.
I knew if I left that dangling, you'd make my point for me.

Thanks, bud!

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#12 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 February 2003 - 02:31 AM

the'Hawk, on Feb 20 2003, 11:16 PM, said:

I knew if I left that dangling, you'd make my point for me.

Thanks, bud!

:cool:
No problem it has become a pet peeve of mine.

The status of the Canadian Military and preposterous neglect of the boarders is something I'll go on about for sometime.  Some Canadians complained about how the US started treating some Canadians citizens suspiciously maybe they should consider why.  Canada has entire vessels (some violating the rules of the sea) that are traveling of the coast of Canada that could potentially be dropping untold numbers of terrorists into Canada.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#13 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 28 February 2003 - 03:34 AM

Just as a bit of followup to my earlier statements.  

Canadian Sea King crashes on HMCS Iroquois
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#14 rodglas

rodglas

    Beneath the Surface; Lies the Future

  • Islander
  • 458 posts

Posted 28 February 2003 - 07:25 PM

I saw this article a little while back, and I thought I'd put it out here just to chew on.

Rod.


Monday, November 25, 2002

Military getting more than we think:
Expert

By CP

OTTAWA -- Canada ranks 14th for military spending in the world and sixth in NATO, a respectable showing that critics of the country's defence spending forget to point out, says a top policy planner. Daniel Bon, considered one of the architects behind the government's 1994 defence white paper, says that such a reality check is missing from the refrain that Canada doesn't spend enough on its armed forces.

"What really counts is how much money you actually spend," said Bon, the defence department's director general of policy planning. "I think that's terribly significant and people are underplaying that," he said. He said critics continue to harp on the percentage of the gross domestic product, or GDP, that Canada devotes to the military, but using those figures is a "pure crock." Bon argued that what counts is real dollars spent on defence, not the percentage of the GDP. Canada spends around $12 billion a year on the military but it ranks 153rd in defence spending out of 192 countries based on percentage of GDP.

"Do you know where the U.S. ranks in the world in terms of GDP they spend (on the military)? 53rd. Shame, shame, shame," he said.

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has on a number of occasions chastised Ottawa for not devoting enough financial resources to the military.
"Requested items: One Mark V ECM unit, 1000 km of fullerene cable, one low yield nuclear warhead. Stated purpose: birthday party for foreign dignitary." --Argosy Special Operations Service requisition form, CY 9512

#15 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 28 February 2003 - 09:36 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 27 2003, 05:31 PM, said:

Just as a bit of followup to my earlier statements. 

Canadian Sea King crashes on HMCS Iroquois
And yet there are no plans in the works to replace them. I mean, they're over 40 years old, my uncle is that old, and *he's* falling apart. ;)

*mutters obscenities about Chretien*

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the guy! ;)

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#16 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 28 February 2003 - 09:45 PM

mystic, on Feb 28 2003, 01:33 PM, said:

*mutters obscenities about Chretien*

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the guy!
Neither did I; I don't live in Shawinigan.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#17 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 01 March 2003 - 01:01 AM

Quote

rodglas: OTTAWA -- Canada ranks 14th for military spending in the world and sixth in NATO, a respectable showing that critics of the country's defence spending forget to point out, says a top policy planner. Daniel Bon, considered one of the architects behind the government's 1994 defence white paper, says that such a reality check is missing from the refrain that Canada doesn't spend enough on its armed forces.

I’ll have to try to look up the numbers on this one.  Something sets off warning bells here considering how decrepit the Canadian military is right now.  I think part of this is the size of Canada’s territory compared to other countries and the peacekeeping missions Canada is so fond of.  Thus the military is badly overstretched and undersized for the amount of commitments and funding it gets.  Either than or the Canadian Government likes to buy 10 Million dollar toilet seats.  They need more funding and probably a lay off on nonessential programs in the military.  


Quote

mystic: And yet there are no plans in the works to replace them. .

They’ll replace them after they all crash and break…  or maybe in 80 years when they can buy V-22 Ospreys at bargain prices.  The real sad thing about the Sea Kings is that I think the issue is more than age but goes deeper into ability to maintain them.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 01 March 2003 - 01:02 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#18 rodglas

rodglas

    Beneath the Surface; Lies the Future

  • Islander
  • 458 posts

Posted 04 March 2003 - 04:25 AM

CJ, the Canadian Armed Forces have their problems but I wouldn't call them decrepit.  Underfunded and overtaxed yes but they are still one of the better militaries in the world.

Canada needs to either increase its defence buget or decrease its commitments around the world or perhaps both.

The only aspect of the Canadian military that can be classified as decrepit is the Sea Kings ( oh, and the mind of the Prime Minister).

Rod.
"Requested items: One Mark V ECM unit, 1000 km of fullerene cable, one low yield nuclear warhead. Stated purpose: birthday party for foreign dignitary." --Argosy Special Operations Service requisition form, CY 9512

#19 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 04 March 2003 - 07:08 AM

Quote

rodglas: The only aspect of the Canadian military that can be classified as decrepit is the Sea Kings ( oh, and the mind of the Prime Minister).

There are more problems with Canada’s military than just the Sea Kings.

Canada the last I knew for example has less than 5,000 artillery shells for use; that isn’t exactly a large amount of shells.  The last time I knew they had next to no bombs or other air to mud ordnances for the CF-18s.  The Victoria and the other submarines of that class are supposed to keep the water on the outside of the craft rather than being leaky.  Victoria as far as I know isn’t defending the West Coast like she is supposed to because she’s in for “dent” removal.  Then you have the whole selling the chocolate chip BDUs then ending up in Forest Greens in Afghanistan.  You have the small detail that no one is available to crew the MCDVs, which are a crucial part of the coastal defense force, and the problems I said above about Canada’s coastal defenses.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#20 rodglas

rodglas

    Beneath the Surface; Lies the Future

  • Islander
  • 458 posts

Posted 04 March 2003 - 10:46 AM

I'm just saying there is a difference between decrepit and underfunded.  If we do have only 5000 shells (and I wouldn't be surprised) it isn't because are artillery peices aren't working.

We do have bombs for our CF-18s though not many, and most often they go up without them because they just cost too much to risk in the air unless needed.

As for the Victoria, I beleive much of the problem with her is that the Brits did a half ass job upgrading her and know we have to fix it.

The "greens" was an stupid action on the part of the CAF forced on them by Ottawa.

The problem is the CAF needs money, a lot of money to get into the fighting trim.  Canadian Soldiers are excellently trained, some of the best in the world, and they do extremly well with what they have but our government needs to either spend more on the military or be ready to reduce the size of the military to match the funding their willing to give.

Rod.
"Requested items: One Mark V ECM unit, 1000 km of fullerene cable, one low yield nuclear warhead. Stated purpose: birthday party for foreign dignitary." --Argosy Special Operations Service requisition form, CY 9512



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, UN Coalition, Canada

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users