Is it possible for Chrétien to make up his mind?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kontiki
AFAIK, only the US, UK and Australia have actual combat assets in Iraq.

I think I've read that there'e a Polish commando unit involved as well, though I'm not positive about that.

[Uncle Sparky]

I think I've read that there'e a Polish commando unit involved as well, though I'm not positive about that.

I've hear that to. I believe there stationed in Paris getting ready for "phase II".

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky


I've hear that to. I believe there stationed in Paris getting ready for "phase II".

Nope. Polish Commandos (WTF?) are indeed on the ground in Iraq, Poland admited so after said Commandos posed for a picture with Reuters outside of Umm Qatah(or whatever the hell it's called)

Incidently, Albania sent it's dreaded "Korsomo" commandos to Iraq.

I suspect they are mildly less threatening than the Crips and Bloods.

[RedFred]

Jean Chretien has never been my favourite kind of guy and I never thought I'd be defending him. But I never thought I'd be agreeing with reasonable Russians over the bias and propaganda of the US media either. These are strange times indeed.

I believe our policy on this war is reasonable. To pull the troops out of our agreed upon exchange program would alienate the US far more than they are already. It is not unreasonable to view the war as a gigantic muslim fundamentalist terrorist recruitment advertisement. But even if our people were pulled, I doubt the terrorists will shake hands and check citizenship before attacking. English speakers of any type will not be popular in the Middle East for a long time. Wish I'd paid more attention at French class.

Yes Hussein is an evil monster Santiago type. Yes he is supporting terrorism. But unlike many Americans I don't believe he was even tangentally responsible for 9/11. And we needed to show our objection to a war that could easily worsen rather than improve the situation in the whole region and could very well result in "regime change" of governments friendly to the West in the area bordering Iraq.

[muppet]

Something the Canadian PM said sometime ago...

Canada’s military spending ranks average or higher when compared in real dollar terms to our allies and global military spending... This was a response to NATO’s Secretary General who was pressuring Canada to increase military spending. From 1980 to 1995 Canada’s share of world military spending nearly doubled and with dramatic increases last year and this year the trend will continue.

Question 1. What's the difference between 'real dollars' and 'GDP'? Does it mean Canadians experience higher opportunity cost in military spending - that it costs Canada more in terms of what it has to give up in social welfare, health care, infrastructure etc. than other NATO countries to field the same units/technology?

Question 2. Could it be Canada just doesn't have the equipment and manpower. I believe Canada had problems keeping 800, or was it 600 troops, in continued operation in Afghanistan. It's apparently been difficult for Canada to send even 1 additional frigate to the area - something about shortage of qualified crew to even man the frigate.

Question 3. What does it really mean for Canada to have observers/logistic people involved, dedicate 100M to post-war Iraq aid, and not formally declare war?

Don't you guys think it would have been harder for the PM to say to Canadians: We declare war on Iraq, BUT our military's current foreign operational capability is worth jack-squat. Canadian planes are still being upgraded to fly with American planes, there aren't enough crew to man Canadian frigates, and Canadian helicopters can only serve as freight choppers. That could have been unnecessary pain for Canadians since Canada has already committed to future military budget increases.

I was under the impression that Canadian forces had to hitch rides with US forces to get to the first Gulf War. Good to see the two working together. Thank you.

And that in Afghanistan, European allies refused to help Canadian forces get to Afghanistan, or something like that - I mean, it's a pretty short trip accross the Mediterranean for Europeans, but a pretty long ride for Canadians to get forces there. It is not exactly in Canada's national security interests to be able to transport an entire army to your side of the world, is it? Thank you for helping anyways. Well, not really, I'm just being diplomatic.

And exactly where are or were the rest of those pesky members of the allied coalition, in Afghanistan? It might not be so bad for other allies to pick up some slack if Canada is having serious economic and staffing problems at the moment. Maybe they just weren't prepared, but they might be next time.

Observations:
1. It seems Canadian government policy has been supportive of America. Chretian, I think, is even on Parliamentary debate records as having flat out said so.

2. Canada's actions have said as much.

3. Canada is an awfully big country for 30 million people. In perspective, France is double Canada's pop with less than half it's territory (I think). Could infrastructure or lack of economy of scale be what's causing this 'real dollar' thing they're talking about - I'm assuming it means it costs Canadians more for the same military output.

Give Canada a break, it's had forces deployed in that area since 1991. Where were the rest of the "allies"? Is it really necessary to humiliate Canadians, force them to declare war in a conflict that they can not possibly participate, numerically, economically, or technologically?

Would the position of the majority of the 'coalition of the willing' make more sense? Something like:

We support you, we fall just short of declaring war, though we have never allied with you, probably never will, have never sent troops to your aid, and probably never will, spend next to nothing on mutual security, have never participated in mutual foreign deployment, and might be willing to formally declare war if you give is a little more money.

If I were American, I'd rather have Canada as my ally, and the Canadian Prime Minister as my neighbour. I think the Canadian Prime Minister is having a tough time between the lack of manpower, and funds, too many past global military, peacekeeping commitments, and keeping Canadian national pride from taking a nose dive.

Just my rant for the day.

[Willem]

Originally posted by muppet


Just my rant for the day.

Well said!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Nope. Polish Commandos (WTF?)

Never, ever underestimate the ability of Polish warfighters. Man for man, they were the bravest, toughest, and most (rationally, not counting kamikaze or Hitler Jugend type nonsense) aggressive fighters in WW2.

Their top end units are exceptionally trained, have the best available personnel, and are up there with the best soldiers in the world.

Asher - Kontiki has the essence of the reason for changes. Another aspect with young officers is that perceived "stars" are often set up with this sort of duty to augment their experience as they become candidates for promotion to higher command. In the US, we also do the same thing between services - one example I remember from the 80's was a Marine aviator major, who'd done a staff tour with an Army armored division's attack helo squadron, had done a flying tour for two years with the USAF in F-15 (air superiority instead of being a mudmover like he was in the Marines), and had done 12 months and two deployments with the Navy on a fleet ballistic missile sub.