Truemors
Flag this story
Digg
del.icio.us
AddToAny
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Canada's Secret War in Iraq
by moonwolf | February 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm | 1081 views | 22 comments
OPINION: Many Canadians live in a nice comfy cocoon of self-satisfied delusion when it comes to how we see our role in the world. A large number of us believe that our country stands at the forefront of sanity and peacemaking and sets a high example for other nations to follow to a better world. We look down our noses at the USA for its military adventurism and revel in the notion that we chose to take a stand against the butchery unfolding in Iraq; yet the facts on the ground belie these warm fuzzy notions.
Canada has been playing a military, logistical and financial role in the "Coalition of the Willing" since Shock and Awe in 2003, but our government has executed our extensive participation on the QT so that we can continue to maintain our self-serving illusions about our moral superiority. In addition to our participation throughout the Middle East, Canada is also one of the globe's largest arms manufacturers and dealers; we supply the USA with Uranium that ends up as DU munitions fired in battle from Belgrade to Baghdad , and our soldiers are killing civilians in a war that cannot be won in Afghanistan on behalf of our US and NATO 'buddies'.
It's time to wake up to reality Canadians. This luxurious lifestyle we live is maintained by cozying up to Big Brother South of the border, and the formidable powers in Europe. We have no moral high ground to stand on as we continue to assist in the slaughter and domination of millions and close our ears to the cries of the innocent in the Middle East.
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again! – Mark TwainOn March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”
Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”
Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:
News Tools
February 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm by moonwolf, 1081 views, 22 comments
Add a comment
Comments (22)
at 16:18 on February 19th, 2008
Ruski,
I know you don't like my stories. But misusing your position as Guest Editor to act as a censorof opinions is not acceptable. There is no opinion category and as such I placed it under World.
I have as much right to stating an editorial opinion as anyone.
"In America, for example, there is no evidence that anyone residing
or governing in this country plans or executes the "slaughter and
domination of millions."
As to this there is a completely unrefutable amount of information on what your country has done and is doing in Iraq based on lies and deceptions by your President.
at 16:22 on February 19th, 2008
Hi. We don't have a top-level opinion category any more, but you can add Opinion as a tag (which will put it in the Opinion channel when you search) as well as perhaps putting the word Opinion before the first line of your story. That way it should be clear, I hope. Many thanks.
at 16:28 on February 19th, 2008
Thanks Rachel,
I was unaware of that and will do so immediately. However you need to know that Big Ruski flames me regularily and misused his position here. Can I contact you when he does so in the future?
at 17:02 on February 19th, 2008
Moonwolf, many times before you have been asked to use the Opinion tag as well as the category, and by more GEs than just TheBigRuski. I've never seen TBR flame anyone, but I have seen you flame many, including me.
Why not just instead understand that your hatred of America and accusing all of us of horrible things, without proof, is baiting? Why not provide proof? And just use, as Rachel suggested "Opinion" first.
at 17:10 on February 19th, 2008
Pep,
No one informed me of what to do here. I was absent from the site when the site changed and was not familiar. Editors are supposed to assisy are they not?
As to examples of flaming I can provide them.
In an opinion piece I do not have to provide proof about the USA's behavior. However if you look back through the stories I have posted here, read any newspaper, look at any website, or listen to any TV or radio there is an endless stream of proof about what the USA , with the complicit permission of its citizens, is doing to Iraq. You just don't want to hear about it. So you think guest editor status is meant to elevate the stories that further your opinion and side-track or sink those that speak to truths you don't want to hear?
at 17:29 on February 19th, 2008
Moonwolf, you were posting on the site 4,5, and 6 days ago, which is precisely the time that Rachel replied to my copy-and-paste topic in the Newsroom. It was an open discussion in which others participated.
The issue of copy-and-paste in entirety, plus copyright concerns, have been discussed numerous times before by Swan, myself, and others. Many times in the past we've discussed tagging things as Opinion, and editors (both staff and gE's), as well as Wranglers, have left comments and even "Needs Improvement" flags on material identified as News not Opinion over the past few months.
This, Moonwolf, is baiting and insulting: "You just don't want to hear about it. So you think guest editor status
is meant to elevate the stories that further your opinion and
side-track or sink those that speak to truths you don't want to hear? "
We've had fruitful dialogue in the past, have we not? Here's what would be debating: Moonwolf says that American involvement in Iraq has led to (cite damage or harm, and the resources that support that contention). Then someone who disagrees comes along and says "American involvement in Iraq has actually achived these positive things (cite positive effects, and the resources that support that contention.)
If anyone is interested in going further, then challenge the data and resources (not the people). Lather, rinse, repeat. Also useful for any other topic. ;}
at 17:40 on February 19th, 2008
Over a million Iraqis dead, a whole country in ruins, based on hundreds of pernicious lies and deceits perpetrated by your President and high officials in the Administration against not only the whole world but the American people.
This is not the nice little academic debate you want it to be. It is life and death and by international law War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity are what we're talking about. So if you don't like hearing what I have to say don't read what I post.
Baiting is something that seems quite prevalent here, even from Guest Editors, if baiting is voicing an opinion someone else doesn't like, as you seem to consider it.
As to going to the Newsroom more often to update myself on policy and changes I plead guilty as charged. However, next time, just tell me what I missed will ya? :D
at 17:04 on February 19th, 2008
Moonwolf, Rachel has said specifically that we are not to copy and paste entire articles from elsewhere, as you have here. Could you fix that, please?
at 17:18 on February 19th, 2008
"Hi. We don't have a top-level opinion category any more, but you can
add Opinion as a tag (which will put it in the Opinion channel when you
search) as well as perhaps putting the word Opinion before the first
line of your story. That way it should be clear, I hope. Many thanks."
This is what Rachel said.
As to cutting and pasting whole stories how about this one on the front page by Ruski:
Belarus Journalist Imprisoned for Republishing Muhammad Cartoons Left Waiting
One line of opinionated intro and then cut and paste! He is a guest Editor and if that is the policy he should know that. Perhaps you can have that corrected or removed from the front page?
I have not seen anywhere on the site that cut and paste is unacceptable. In fact if you took cut and paste away you would have nothing from AP and most of the other stories would disappear too, isn't that a fact?
Again this has nothing to do with anything other than you don't like me or my opinions, or my pieces, and want to harrass me and use your position to do so.
It won't work.
at 17:38 on February 19th, 2008
Moonwolf, I listened to you and I went and checked. TBR's piece is a proper excerpt using the Highlight tool. It is not the entire article. (I counted paragraphs and looked at them side by side.)
The cut-and-paste of entire news articles has indeed, been thoroughly thrashed out. Rachel Nixon has now made it a standard policy for members and staffers that entire articles from other resources will not be fully copied (or cut) and pasted. Again, I refer you to the dialogue that was ongoing in the Newsroom last week while you were active here. Really, come hang out in the Newsroom now and then--it's a great place to discuss concerns, and Rachel is taking the time to play an active role, and is very responsive.
As far as AP pieces posted by AP--it's their material, so if AP, using their account, chooses to put their whole article here, that's up to them. They own that material. Again, I'd suggest you ask Rachel to clarify this.
Despite your personal attack on me, I remain willing to dialogue with you.
Please address your concerns about "most of the other stories" disappearing to Rachel Nixon.
at 17:36 on February 19th, 2008
Since Moonwolf has now flagged the story as Opinion and posted an excerpt rather than the whole text of the article in question, I have removed the wrench.
Since not everyone may have seen what I posted in the forum the other day with regard to cut and paste, here's a summary:
Highlighting an excerpt from an article, with a link
back to the original material is OK, and we encourage this as a
starting point for your own comments, stories or experiences. You can add value to and build on the original material
with your own views and experiences.
It's not OK to cut and paste a full, copyrighted article without
the use of the highlight tool - and that goes for staffers as well as
NowPublic contributors.
Also, for the sake of transparency I am posting The Big Ruski's original comment that triggered the wrench here. As this is now flagged as an opinion piece I hope concerns are now addressed. With regard to Big Ruski's article, that contains an excerpt rather than the whole text of the article.
I hope we can have a fruitful dialogue about these things in future.
Big Ruski's original comment to Moonwolf:
needs improvement:
Should
be tagged as opinion. The statement: "...as we continue to assist in
the slaughter and domination of millions and close our ears to the
cries of the innocent in the Middle East..." is an unsubstantiated
opinion. In America, for example, there is no evidence that anyone
residing or governing in this country plans or executes the "slaughter
and domination of millions."
at 17:39 on February 19th, 2008
Thank you, Rachel. I was going to write and ask you to respond here but I see that you're on top of it all. :)
at 17:57 on February 19th, 2008
Thanks Rachel,
I am clear as a bell on all this now!
at 18:10 on February 19th, 2008
For the record, I have never "flamed" moonwolf. His consistent negative campaign against America makes the majority of the stories submitted not news stories, but opinion pieces. Thinly veiled "news stories" with headlines, leads, and commentary that clearly show an anti-American bias should either be tagged as opinion or be able to have contributors such as myself comment on them appropriately without being in fear of repurcussions.
at 18:31 on February 19th, 2008
Hi BigRuski. Thanks for your comments. Since this particular article is now flagged as Opinion, I have removed the wrench.
For the record, and speaking generally, NowPublic should be a place for healthy debate - and clearly not everyone is going to agree with one another (the world would be a very dull place if so!) - but I'd be grateful if all members of the site could please keep their comments constructive and respectful.
Since the term flaming has been used in this thread, for reference here's a reminder of NowPublic's policy on flaming.
I hope this concludes the matter for now.
at 18:53 on February 19th, 2008
Thank you, Rachel!
at 18:49 on February 19th, 2008
Ruski,
For the record:
"Again, your jaded view of America has perversed your postings and
comments. Tell me about one soldier you've talked to about his stay in
Iraq and who spews the same crap you do.
I am seriously considering not wasting my time on replies to your
stories and comments...only I really feel sorry for those that buy your
manure that's piled as high as can be imagined.
Why you are allowed to stay at NowPublic is a complete puzzle to
me....you deal in hate expressed in words on the web. I am deeply
offended by your rantings at this site. Yet, I mostly feel sorry for
you, your enablers, and those that buy into your hatred."
Ruski, these are your words quoted from another story after I brought a huge number of links to prove my contentions on America. You did not attempt to debate me at all on the points, you simply attacked my character, my intelligence and made it very personal and that is FLAMING laid out by the Flaming Policy here!
at 18:50 on February 19th, 2008
I have checked several links you've provided in your opinion pieces and all of them were links to sites dealing in hate for America.
I stand by my statement in regards to the opinions you have expressed.
at 20:44 on February 19th, 2008
You continue to miss the point. It is not hate for America it is hate and disgust
for what those in power in your country are doing in your name. I have many friends in the USA who are fighting hammer and tong to Impeach George Bush, something that is your gutless Congress's Constitutional responsibility. They work thanklessly, tirelessly at the duties set out for them by your Founding Fathers to hold their Government and officials to account, to end the endemic, irrational, and markedly false concept of the right of the USA to interfere, and to lift the US to the pinnacle of moral, honest global leadership where it belongs. I did not say global domination, which is the obvious desire of the unholy alliance between your government and global corporate raiders and oligarchs, I said leadership. Leadership, as we all know, does not manifest itself in killing, destruction, torture, invasion and occupation. Those US citizens who fight the good fight are my friends and I love them and what they stand for completely. That's
the difference.
To further clarify, America is a place, not a nationality and you live in the US part of America, bordered by Canada and Mexico, two separate countries whose populations call themselves Americans. This distinction is important to this conversation. You see, your accusation that I hate a place or all the people who live in three different and separate parts of that place is baseless and effortless to prove so.
Regardless of what you believe about my opinions or the thrust of most of my posts, the quote of what you said about me, highlighted above is flaming as stated in the Flaming Policy here. As an editor are you not entrusted with upholding that policy and setting the benchmark for behavior on Now Public? Please do so.
Your behavior smacks of a double standard and therein lies the guts of the problem I have with your Editorial use of power. It's OK for you but not others to behave in a certain manner. American exceptionalism is a state that runs deep in your comments about me, my comments, and my posts.
By the way, and to get back to the subject matter of the post, this editorial actually speaks to Canadian's deluded sense of exceptionalism. As a Canadian I am unafraid to speak out against my government or a failure in public morality should I see the necessity. It is actually my duty in this plurality called Canada. Robotic, flag-waving patriotism speaks to the banality and bankruptcy of a nation and signals a deep malaise within its social structure. It is an abandonment of reason, an utter failure of individual critical thinking and the personal and social responsibility of a citizen of any supposed democratic country.
at 21:36 on February 19th, 2008
So, in addition to your view of America being an imperialistic state, your Canadians have a "deluded sense of exceptionalism"? BTW I am happy you have American friends...and apparently still some Canadian ones as well. I guess "exceptionalism" is an endearing term.
Also, BTW...there is a difference between calling out the truth and flaming. Flaming would be remarks without merit. The truth would simply be the truth. Each time you are called out on on an apparent hatred, you back off your original statement....and attempt to soften the hateful comments.
You see, engaging in conversation with you, simply opens myself up to more cries of "flaming" from you. You have free reign here to hate on America, or parts of America, or some people in America, or the government of America, or a big part of America and then change it to a different part of America when "flamed."
You have called me and my country many things...but I have never said you were flaming me.
at 21:53 on February 19th, 2008
I'm not that wishy-washy. I hate the same institutions, officials, bureaucrats, lies and actions of the USA all the time. I would hate anyone from any country who behaved the way your leaders do. I am nothing if not consistant.
One of the glaring differences between Canada and the USA is people up here can disagree vehemently, complete with expletives and remain friends. We are not so insecure and over-sensitive that we have a problem with the honesty to look at our down sides, our institutions and behaviors and each other. Not so in your circle obviously.
"I am seriously considering not wasting my time on replies to your
stories and comments...only I really feel sorry for those that buy your
manure that's piled as high as can be imagined."
This has nothing to do with calling out the facts, it is purely a personal opinion. It is also flaming.
As to the first part about wasting your time commenting and replying? Unless you can stay on topic and contribute something substantive to that topic why don't you pay attention to yourself and do just that.
at 22:02 on February 19th, 2008
This thread has gone far off topic. And unfortunately the important parts of the discussion are far over shadowed by the arguing. As such, I'm closing down this thread.