Canada Says Will Not Join Solo U.S. Attack on Iraq

HeXp£Øi±

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Tue Feb 18, 6:33 PM ET

In OTTAWA story, "Canada says will not join solo U.S. attack on Iraq", please read in the final paragraph "... last week Ottawa announced it would be sending up to 2,000 troops for a year to take part in a U.N. peacekeeping mission based in Kabul." Corrects to Kabul from Baghdad. A corrected repetition follows.

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada toughened its line on the Iraq crisis on Tuesday, saying it had no intention of contributing to a possible U.S.-led attack that had not been blessed by the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council.

U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) says if the U.N. backs away from the idea of authorizing force to disarm Baghdad, he is prepared to wage war with what he calls a "coalition of the willing".

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien has until now refused to rule out contributing forces to a possible unilateral U.S. attack, but on Tuesday he told Parliament this was not an option.

"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 asking whether Canada would join "a coalition of willing countries".

Chretien last week gave a speech in Chicago in which he strongly urged Bush to follow Canada's lead and tackle the Iraq crisis within the United Nations.

"If they (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," he said on Tuesday.

Whether Canada's stretched armed forces could contribute anything to an attack on Iraq is in any case questionable, since last week Ottawa announced it would be sending up to 2,000 troops for a year to take part in a U.N. peacekeeping mission based in Kabul.
Click to expand...
Source
 
With the state of the Canadian military, that's pretty much all they can do. But, hey, at least now, 3000 soldiers have tan uniforms. Just got them this week.

The only significant military force Canada can put forth is the joint strick force. Anything else they have can and will be sent from the states faster, cheaper, and better. In most military action, the Canadians usually wind up as security guards at the bases anyways.
 
Well, to join in an attack would imply we have the forces, errm, we don't.... So no surprise there.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
"If they (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.
Click to expand...

You guys are ignoring the important part on purpose right?
 
Last I knew, the English, Aussies, Italians, and a few other minor nations have agreed to do the deed with us. Thats hardly solo.
 
No it's not solo, but I think the point of the article is that Canada will only support and approve if the U.N. does.
 
Perfectly fine. No need to drag other nations into it that don't feel like it. To do so would mark them for terrorist retaliations. I can understand the tightrope act that they need to balance out against on the world scene.
 
I say we boycott Canada and rename "Canadian Geese" to "Liberty Geese" or some other such cheesiness.

I for one will switch from Molsen to Steinlager this weekend. :D
 
Being a little budget minded lately and with the current deals at the grocery store the choice comes down to Molsen/Steinlager at $8.99/12pk or delving into the uninspired offerings from Bud and Miller for about the same price.

I might have to stick with the Molsen since my committment on this issue is suspect in the first place. :)
 
:confuse3: Ok....France gets several thread dedicated to its defamation with no holds barred and all insults applauded. Canada, on the other hand, gets a free pass from everyone except flav? I'm sure glad we maintain an aire of consistency in our thoughts....:disgust2:
 
Canada isn't on the security council and has for the most part been a rather agreeable partner. The French have been wet dishrags in all of living memory.

Apples to apples. Oranges to oranges.
 
no no no... Its: It is both, buckwheat. (thereby applying the slander against a target)

It is both buckwheat (that is just calling opinion and comparison buckwheat)
 
stfu. don't call me buckwheat.

to what are you comparing then? please explain me, jerrek, since you know so well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top