Justin Trudeau: ‘The Iraq fiasco haunts choices’

gb123

Well-Known Member
upload_2014-10-2_13-56-28.gif
Maclean's
macleans.ca2 hrs ago
For the record, prepared remarks for Justin Trudeau at the Canada 2020 conference in Ottawa. (Ellipses indicate where we’ve removed the French.)
We’re a few years away from 2020. But each challenge we face now… is a chance to work toward that future Canada.
And as we do, we should consider our actions in a future tense. How will we stay true to our country’s character? How will we live up to our own high standards? How do we make judgments today with that future in mind? … Before us is a question of the most serious and consequential kind about how Canada ought to act in the world.
More to the point: how can Canada deploy its resources and resourcefulness in a world of ongoing and complex threats? How do we ensure our own security, and help build peace for people in the world’s most embattled places.
This is what we face with ISIL. It is a threat to regional and global security, and to millions of innocent people in an already war-ravaged part of the world.
You know as well as I do that ISIL’s acts are horrific. They are designed to be. ISIL murders ethnic and religious minorities across Iraq. They murder innocent civilians, humanitarian workers and journalists. These awful acts have been fully documented – often by the perpetrators themselves. This humanitarian crisis and security threat needs to be dealt with. But when we ask ourselves what Canada should do about it, a lot of tough questions arise. … The 2003 Iraq war was waged on false pretenses and flawed intelligence.
It was a mission that destabilized the region … sowed further conflict … cost our allies three trillion dollars … and cost thousands of people their lives. The world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake.
Let us never forget how that mission was sold to the public:
With overheated, moralistic rhetoric that obscured very real flaws in the strategy and the plan to implement it.
I thought about this the other day in Parliament when Mr. Harper called the current military campaign a “noble effort.” Back in 2003, he called President Bush’s Iraq war a matter of “freedom, democracy and civilization itself.”
Clear answers. Honest answers. Complete answers.
We know the Iraq fiasco haunts the choices we have to make today. But we cannot make the wrong decision now because the wrong decision was made then.
Liberals supported that non-combat mission in good faith. And how was that faith rewarded? They won’t reveal the goals of that mission. They won’t reveal how that mission might end. They were not upfront about exactly how many members of our Forces are part of that mission.
They wouldn’t even give us a start date… let alone an end date.
That last bit of information did come eventually.
But by that time, Canadian Forces were already involved. Canadians still don’t know what those advisors – members of our Forces – have been doing all this time.
Or what sort of risks they may be facing. That 30-day mission is almost up.
How did Mr. Harper let Canadians know that he was thinking about sending their fellow citizens into war? He announced it casually in New York – during an interview with the Wall Street Journal at Goldman Sachs.
And as we later learned through the US State Department, Mr. Harper’s description of events was only loosely related to the truth. He had been the one to offer the help first.
Instead of being honest and upfront with Canadians, he dissembled. Instead of being open and transparent Mr. Harper gave his own version of events. The one that helped him make his argument. He remains secretive, and with a purpose.
Unlike prime ministers for decades before him, Mr. Harper has made no effort to build a non-partisan case for war. Instead he dares us to oppose his war, staking out not moral territory but political territory.
As a consequence, all these critical questions go unanswered. We don’t know exactly what he has offered the Americans. We don’t know what our role will look like.
We don’t know how long our contribution is expected to last.
We don’t know how helpful our CF-18s will truly be.
In place of these facts we get rhetoric about the nobility of combat. This all makes Canadians understandably anxious.
What we do know is this:
It has been more than a week since Mr Harper said he might shift Canada’s contribution in the fight against ISIL from a non-combat to a combat role.
It has been more than a week since he said we could be sending the Canadian Forces into war. Which means it is now more than a week since he set us on a path to doing something we can’t – and he won’t – define. This is troubling, my friends. On this issue of all issues. In that place of all places, it is very troubling.
Canada has asked a lot of our men and women in uniform over the last decade. And too often they have returned home only to be let down. If we are to ask more of them now, we had better have a good reason. … Mr. Harper is intent on taking Canada to war in Iraq. He needs to justify that.
He has not made the case for it.
He hasn’t even tried.
In the time since Mr. Harper raised this idea of an extended Canadian mission in Iraq on Wall Street… Our ally, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, reached across partisan lines and held a full and informed parliamentary debate.
It’s quite a contrast.
We are told a debate is finally coming to our own House of Commons. Well, here are the core principles Liberals will take to that debate.
One: That Canada does have a role to play to confront humanitarian crises and security threats in the world.
Two: That when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission overall and a clear role for Canada within that mission.
Three: That the case for deploying our Forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts.
And four: That Canada’s role must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities. And how best we can help.
It comes down to this:
Canadians expect the highest standard of openness and honesty from a leader who wants to send our Forces to war.
Prime Minister Harper has so far failed to meet that standard. … Here’s the thing: Prime Minister Harper would have you believe that Canada’s best contribution to this effort is a handful of aging war planes.
I think Canadians have a lot more in them than that. We can be resourceful, and there are significant, substantial, non-combat roles that Canada can play … And some we can play better than many – or perhaps any — of our allies. Whether they are strategic airlift… training… or medical support.
We have the capabilities to meaningfully assist in a non-combat role, a well-defined international mission.
And we should also answer the call from our allies to provide more help with a well-funded and well-planned humanitarian aid effort.
Our Canadian values and principles are reflected in our commitment to the Responsibility to Protect. And while that does not require us to take a combat role it does compel us to help. … Political reform has to occur in Iraq. It needs informed partners to help build these institutions. This is something we do well.
The country needs an inclusive government that speaks for and represents all Iraqi men and women. Iraq needs a government that is fair-minded and which respects the many ethnic minorities within its borders.
Canada has that expertise.
In the end this all comes down to leadership. Who do we want to be? What are our values? What are our interests and how do we want to pursue those interests in the world? In this case, it is about the prime minister’s sacred responsibility to be honest and truthful with people, especially about matters of life and death. At the end of every decision to enter combat is a brave Canadian in harm’s way. We owe them clarity. We owe them a plan.
Most of all, we owe them the truth. Mr. Harper has offered none of those.
There is another question Canada 2020 puts to us. It’s right there on the website: Where do we want Canada to be on the world stage? I think the answer to that one is actually quite easy. We do not want a Canada that only believes itself to be a leader while in reality it merely follows along in global affairs ….Canada should be a true leader. One that has earned its place at the front of the pack, based on the role we play internationally and our commitment to uphold human rights and security. A Canada that stays true to its founding values… and that will be an example to the world.


HARPER......"DAMN That Boy was paying attention. He knows more about what I did that I do myself . :lol:
 
Last edited:

Brewery

Well-Known Member
Trudeau is sounding more and more like a true leader for this country.

He already had my support on the cannabis front alone. This article shows his value as out new PM.
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
I doubt Trudeau wrote this. What politician does?
I give the speech writer a big kudos...very impressed.
I give Trudeau kudos too for delivering it.
I enjoyed reading that, thank you gb
 

leaffan

Well-Known Member
from Huff post...you can see how the Conservatives are already spinning things...
Fear fear fear...That is the Conservative tool...the same tool the Americans use on their people.
What about the atrocities in Africa?



http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/01/iraq-canada-combat_n_5917462.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

OTTAWA — As Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares to announce Canada’s combat mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) Friday, his caucus made it clear Wednesday they are ready and willing to make the case for more aggressive action in Iraq.

Conservative MP after Conservative MP said Canada itself is under threat from the terrorist group and the public would understand the need to fight ISIL in the Middle East before the fight occurs at home.

The Huffington Post Canada has learned a Commons debate is expected Monday.

Canada has a responsibility to step up, said Costas Menegakis, the MP for Richmond Hill, Ont.


“I think that my constituents, like all Canadians, will be pleased that something is being done against those monsters that are beheading people, mutilating women, killing children,” he said. “These are atrocities in the world, and we can’t stand by and say, ‘Oh, it’s so far away, it doesn’t belong to us,’ if you will, because there is a real live threat to Canadians of that happening.”

Manitoba MP Steven Fletcher said the civilized world needs to stop ISIL as soon as possible. He let it slip that Canada is planning “an air campaign” in addition to the humanitarian aid and the 26 special operations troops on the ground serving as advisors.

“If the opposition doesn’t feel that Canada should join the civilized world and defeat these barbarians, these terrorists, shame on the opposition,” he said.

There were few, if any, signs of dissent within the Tory fold Wednesday. Several MPs described the Tory backbench in caucus as “almost unanimous.”

“I didn’t see anybody that was in opposition,” Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn told reporters. “Obviously, we don’t take a straw poll on the floor of caucus.”

Mississauga–Streetsville MP Brad Butt, who told HuffPost Tuesday he wasn’t sure a combat mission is needed right now and that he would prefer to see Canada invest in humanitarian assistance, tried to duck reporters as he headed towards the washroom.

The case for a combat mission might be easy, but the the public has little appetite for war, Daryl Kramp, the chair of the Commons Public Safety and National Security committee, told HuffPost.

Kramp, the MP for the Ontario riding of Prince Edward–Hastings, said his constituents understand that “we live in a dangerous world and you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t, on something like this.”

“This is not a question of going to war, quite frankly. I think I would refer to it more as damage control,” he said. “We don’t just live in our own backyards anymore, the globe has just shrunk to such an extent that everytime there is a hiccup here, there is a burp there,” he said.

Canada needs to respond in an intelligent, measured manner in concert with a broad international coalition, he added. “Do we want to see another 9/11?” he asked.

“There is no doubt that the Canadian public doesn’t have an appetite for a full-out offensive,” he said, so Canada will not go down that road “right now.”

“We will have to deal with it, day by day, step by step, week by week” he said.

In question period Wednesday, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau tried to reinforce the idea that Canada was embarking in a long drawn-out conflict with no end in sight by describing the potential airstrikes as “war.”

“How much will Canadians pay for the Prime Minister’s war in Iraq,” Mulcair asked, while Trudeau told the Commons Harper was “intent on going to war in Iraq.”

Harper said it is a “a very serious issue to throw around terms” like that. The mission in Iraq is a “counterterrorism military operation undertaken by the United States in close consultation with our NATO allies, with Arab allies and with the international community,” the prime minister said.

“This is being done because ISIL represents an extremely serious threat to the globe,” he continued. “If it is allowed to continue to fester, it represents a very serious danger to the national security of this country and to Canadians.”

NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar said his leader’s choice of words was deliberate. Not only did it remind the public that Harper wanted Canada to enter former U.S. president George W. Bush’s war in Iraq in 2003, but it also reinforced the message that war is open-ended and deadly.

“I’m in favour of clear language,” he said. “When you have soldiers and you have airstrikes, that’s combat, that’s war.”

Harper told the Commons that the government was not considering a large-scale ground deployment – since Canada’s allies have ruled it out. Tuesday, he told the Commons he had no interest in getting stuck in a quagmire.

Hawn, a former air force commander, said airstrikes would be easy to carry out and easy to stop. “Turning off the air operation would be extremely quick, if it came to that.”

Two relatively senior Tories, Minister of State, Small Business and Tourism Maxime Bernier and International Trade parliamentary secretary Erin O’Toole told reporters that, whatever mission is decided on in the days to come, the government would return to the Commons for a review and decision on possible renewals.

Some Tory MPs were unsure whether a combat mission in Iraq would plunge Canada into a war.

Brampton West MP Kyle Seeback said he didn’t have the facts to make that determination. “We need to play a role,” he said. When you look at the atrocities, “I don’t know how you are against that.”

O’Toole, a former air navigator with the Royal Canadian Navy, said he thought Canada should take on a “warfighting role” by joining the airstrikes against ISIL targets.

“If you take hostile act from the air or from the ground or from the sea, I call it warfighting, some people [call it] combat,” he said. “War is different. War is prolonged – like if we are doing strategic strikes or if there was some sort of intervention that may not equate to war.”

Unlike the Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan, ISIL is a non-state actor, O’Toole said, so war is not the right term to use either.

O’Toole said he thought Mulcair was calling the airstrikes ‘war’ to sow opposition within the Canadian public.
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
It's just to bad Steveo doesn't have a kid to send over. That'd make him think twice...you can bet on that.

There are FAR MORE atrocities in this world than these ISIL idiots are up to, that we could help by not going to war.
This addition to the "business of war " is what Harper is about.
people in exchange for wealth.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
It's just to bad Steveo doesn't have a kid to send over. That'd make him think twice...you can bet on that.

There are FAR MORE atrocities in this world than these ISIL idiots are up to, that we could help by not going to war.
This addition to the "business of war " is what Harper is about.
people in exchange for wealth.
Actually, as luck would have it, he does. Little Ben is 18,maybe 19 by now. Send him over there and see how proud of his sacrifice he is when his kid comes back in a body bag. Ben's too busy getting little girls drunk in his bedroom to be going off to war tho.
 

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
Actually, as luck would have it, he does. Little Ben is 18,maybe 19 by now. Send him over there and see how proud of his sacrifice he is when his kid comes back in a body bag. Ben's too busy getting little girls drunk in his bedroom to be going off to war tho.

Better yet, comes back alive and is prescribed Medical marijuana for PTSD.

I don't wish a death on anybody, bad ju-ju

Itsme.
 

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
Why the fuck are we helping the US clean the mess they created by killing off Saddam and the others that kept hardcore Islamist's at bay? This "the terrorists are coming for us"
bogeyman shit has to stop, every one of us has a 1000X better chance of dying in traffic accident every day then we ever will from terrorist attacks. I don't want extra laws that make me a prisoner to protect me.

See the people behind the wars in gov want us to go in there. This threat from terrorist will never stop but it sure plays nice into the hands of those who want to control us at home. Its a prefect way to take away out rights, to me these are the real threat to Canadian, US and the worlds freedom and stability.

No I don't have an answer as to what to do with with criminals using a religion to justify murdering 1000's but from every conflict in history bombing them back to the stone age doesn't work.
 

Skylor

Well-Known Member
Why the fuck are we helping the US clean the mess they created by killing off Saddam and the others that kept hardcore Islamist's at bay? This "the terrorists are coming for us"
bogeyman shit has to stop, every one of us has a 1000X better chance of dying in traffic accident every day then we ever will from terrorist attacks. I don't want extra laws that make me a prisoner to protect me.

.
The West took Iraq from the people and their leader, we killed Saddam cause we knew he might been released someday and put back in as their leader....those people liked Saddam...maybe he was evil but he was their leader. Once the West gained control and had its oil companies drilling the oil, fields we handed over Iraq back to ?? I'm not sure on that..they held some type of election but the candidates were restricted on who could run.

Look what happen to Egypt, they elected the brotherhood and the west helped Egypt army overthrow the government--that the people voted for.

Where should those people live ? ISIS is going evil things but look what happen to their love ones the past 10-12 years. What comes around goes around. Recall that prison in Iraq Abu Ghraib...we never seen all the photos and heard all who were likely killed..we just heard the tip of the abuse, IMO..many files are still classified and wont be released for 75 years or more
 

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
Is anyone really surprised that we are now involved in a combat mission as opposed to "offering advice"? It's all been a ruse to get us over there!
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
100% on that.
They want in Syria.
They tried last year. Now theyre at it again. Using sick demented ways in doing so too.
The USA funds boths sides of this fuck up!.
Way more atrocities to go up against ......but money and oil is more of a concern than african girls being raped and murdered.
 

Skylor

Well-Known Member
Oil was the number one reason the "war on terror" took place. Look at Afghanistan we were told there was nothing of value over there, that we just went there to "help those people" yet after we took over the place, news came out that Afghanistan has billions in vast mineral and gas reserves...they still try to claim we did not know that until after we went in, yeah right...how dumb do they think we are.
 

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
Oil was the number one reason the "war on terror" took place. Look at Afghanistan we were told there was nothing of value over there, that we just went there to "help those people" yet after we took over the place, news came out that Afghanistan has billions in vast mineral and gas reserves...they still try to claim we did not know that until after we went in, yeah right...how dumb do they think we are.
They needed to remove Saddam as he had a tight grip on not letting Islamic Fundamentalists establish a foot hold plus didn't help if he truly moved to trading oil in Euro. Afghanistan has heroin if that stopped it would be a big bump in the billions DEA makes, why do would the US protect poppy fields?. Its all planned to the t. The ones running the show know exactly what they are going.
 

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
Good men will have to die to put down evil. Always been that way. Always will......who is the only question.
And what's your tolerance to watching humans being slaughtered like mere animals. This is what we need to all ask of ourselves. If you don't know........... watch a few of isis video's of mass murder in HD ....purely disgusting and time to act....again.
Also, be prepared for this to come to a mall near you. Any day .
Hence why the population should be armed in theory. Hopefully protecting ourselves won't be necessary...but then again. Look at that guy who plugged that fucker who beheaded the lady in the US last week. If that guy wasn't there with a hand gun more folks would be missing their heads. Even the fuzz agreed on that issue. If terrorist start showing up in our town and cities will the cops be every where...or at Timmies
Arm up folks...............already done here. .
Try stopping someone with a long rifle empty handed......doesn't go well usually. Almost any weapon really. What would you do almost empty handed against an axe, shovel, bat, metal bar, chainsaw, car, pitch fork, propane torch.........ya see all easy stuff to get and a cheap effective weapon if folks are unarmed...sad eh?
So better do something now with the SOB's over there than right here. At least less trouble anyway.
 

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
If terrorist start showing up in our town and cities will the cops be every where...
Trick question; Cops Are Terrorists (unless they refuse to enforce unjust laws). They are already in our towns and cities.

Anyone who would commit violence against someone because of plants, is a terrorist.
 

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
i gotta wonder... if ISIS went around rounding up their enemies and executing them as humanely as possible, would the rest of the world be so upset by it?

"...well, you know... they gave them shelter and hot meals for a few weeks before giving them a choice between nembutal and a rusty saw..."

I think we need to stop focusing on the Degree of their violence, and start focusing on Why the violence is occurring. Method of killing is less important than motive.

By comparison, i'm sure some people will take that "cops are terrorists" statement and think something like "oh, that's not nearly as bad! how is it even comparable?"

But how much suffering occurs during a beheading, versus spending 2+ decades forcibly confined? And how does a beheading compare to having your home invaded and being murdered by "authorities," for such an absurd reason?

I say they are equivalent, despite the disparity in the methods used... and police have killed and/or ruined FAR more lives than ISIS, and for similarly absurd and unacceptable motives.

The terrorists are already here. They've been running things for a long time already. They're just not as deliberately shocking and brutal and primitive with their methods... although their cruelty knows no bounds.
 

Skylor

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure there is such a thing as executing humanely.....I'm totally against the death penalty, its wrong to kill, plain and simple. After WW11 the Europeans seen what Germany did with its death camps and decided to ban all forms of execution. The only good reason to take a life is to save a life.

As for ISIS, well we get to see everything out there, there is no media block out, no pictures are banned, nothing is covered up. Recall Blackwater and what was claimed they did in Iraq..why are young blacks chatting "Hands up, don't shoot" in the Midwest ?

Yeah it is odd how heroin is such a problem today but I find it easier to think its the people coming back from the wars that are sneaking the junk back home rather then the US government bringing the junk here. People are just human, when a quick buck can be made, many will dump their morals to make an easy buck
 
Top