Outspoken left-wing British MP Galloway says Canada is complicit in Iraq w

[CHIMO]

Outspoken left-wing British MP Galloway says Canada is complicit in Iraq war

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. (CP) - Despite its refusal to fight in Iraq, Canada is complicit in the U.S. war on terrorism and should withdraw from Afghanistan, an outspoken left-wing British MP said Saturday.

"I'm amazed that so many people in Canada believe they're not a part of this crime," George Galloway said at the sixth annual conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim Association of Canada.

"Canada has sent an army of 1,000 soldiers to occupy the Muslim country of Afghanistan (and ships to the Persian Gulf)," Galloway said.

Galloway also called Canada's reputation as peacekeepers a lie, pointing to comments by Gen. Rick Hillier, who said soldiers are fighting "detestable murderers and scumbags."

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n091721A

[Ignacio Upton]

1. I disagree with Galloway

I like the fact that he has been outspoken about the war in Iraq, but it is not fair to attack the Canadians when they are not even involved. The War on Terrorism itself is justified (with the exception of the Patriot Act's most draconian provisions and abuses at Gitmo), but the War in Iraq is just part of Bush's political wet-dream complex.

[kitty1]

29. I disagree as well. There are legitimate terrorist networks..

operating out of Aftghanistan,and Canada is justified in helping to control that environment. It is a powder keg of illicit activity. Iraq on the other hand, was an illegal invasion which was unjustified and caused the slaughter of countless innocents. There was no viable threat to the West, as they would have had us believe. To suggest we are complicit in Iraq, is painting us with a broad brush and it is wrong. I do admire Mr. Galloway for his frankness on the Iraq war. It's refreshing.

[StrafingMoose]

40. The 'terrorists' of Afghanistan...

Are a direct aftermath of USA/ISI/Saudi Arabia leaving the country devastated after their little show of muscle against the USSR. That's a bare minimum, since they could very well still be those networks the West built in there.

After reading this among other things, I'm less convinced about Canada's neutrality. And I'm Canadian for the record.

By the way, Canada did at least one very dirty thing to its own citizens in the past; letting 300+ of them die in a plane bombing they knew very well would be attacked: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/files_investigation.html

That's the national TV in here, so it's kinda 'admitted' if you know what I mean.

[Spazito]

2. I was supportive of Canada's role within NATO to be, in essence,

peacekeepers and were stationed in and around Kabul. I DO NOT support the recent change of mission and cannot disagree with Galloway on this. If we had not changed our mission to allow the US to withdraw even more troops from Afghanistan maybe they would have to withdraw from Iraq quicker to the betterment of all, imo.

[CHIMO]

3. JTF2 in high gear conducting counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan

OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian special forces soldiers in southern Afghanistan have killed Taliban and al-Qaida rebels over multiple operations in recent months as they work secretly in small units, military sources say.

The modest contingent of troops from Joint Task Force 2 is an integral part of coalition efforts to stem the tide of insurgency that has risen since campaigning began for Sunday's parliamentary elections.

JTF2 commandos have joined counterparts from the United States and some British Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, in fighting that has claimed more than 1,200 lives in six months, say the Canadian defence sources.

Based at the Kandahar airport, the special forces troops are working under U.S. command, independently from Canadian soldiers running a provincial reconstruction team nearby or peacemakers patroling under NATO in Kabul.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n091647A

Some are with NATO and others are not. What seems to be developing is a migration in attitudes with only the BQ keeping an eye on things. Which I am sure they will pull out of the hat at the most opportune time.

[Spazito]

4. When the mission changed recently, I noted that we would have

troops under direct U.S. command and fired off a few hot e-mails to the various cabinet ministers expressing my outrage. Needless to say, I received nothing back.

What amazed me was that little tidbit re the command structure was never picked up by the mainstream media, it just laid there, collecting dust.

[CHIMO]

6. Yep

Seems like the only politicians that have any interest in this situation are the BQ. It seems like even the NDP don't want to shine a light on things for fear of slowing traffic at the border and having the CAW on their back.(My take on it)

However, when someone is killed, I expect the BQ will bring up the issue. It is only a matter of time. In addition, the issue can become a dividing issue in the upcoming election and it can be manipulated, even caused, by people outside the country.

But that is the intelligence we have in Ottawa today, everything for short term gain.

[arikara]

34. I'll go further, we should never have rushed into Afghanistan at all.

That carpet of bombs was based on as many lies as the Iraq invasion. And I also remember hearing somewhere that there were some special Canadian ops in Iraq that were attached to the American military. I'm not going to debate this, if someone knows for sure that they weren't there I'd be more than happy.

[Spazito]

38. Yes, the US certainly asked Canada for the JTF 2, the crack

special forces group prior to the actual invasion of Iraq as per this article:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1037797081671_122?s_name=&no_ads=

and here is something interesting from hansert on that very question re the forces being in Iraq, I remember when it was raised:

"And then there was the question asked last week about the special forces. Naturally, the minister told us, “No, absolutely not. There are no special forces”. Yet, I would like to remind the House that with regard to Kosovo, as soon as the war there had ended, the government admitted, “Yes, our special forces were there”.

Do I need to remind the House that in Afghanistan it was through a photograph on the front page of the Globe and Mail that we learned that the special forces were there? I have the feeling that forces that are likely special have joined the American Delta Forces and the British SAS troops and are currently on the ground."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/076_2003-03-24/han076_1315-E.htm

[applegrove]

5. I'll agree that there is bitterness in the Middle East because of

the West dealing with elite & undemocratic leadership to get cheap oil.

"These airplanes on 9-11 may have seemed to have come out of a clear blue sky but, in fact, these monstrous mosquitoes flew out of a swamp of bitterness and hatred and anger which exists in the Muslim world (because of) the injustice of western policy," Galloway said.


But that does not mean that we have to be for OBL whose plan was to start wars across the middle east & replace each country with theocracy. They did this by bombing local people and Algeria is a good example of how this policy ended up. It ended with ten Algerian Islamo-terrorists deeming only their own ten ass as being worthy of life - and everyone else in Algeria was to be killed.

The reason why OBL turned on the USA is because the people & civilians & voters of the Middle East (where they got to vote in whatever form of election it was) wholeheartedly rejected OBL and his terrorist offshoots.

So why should the west feel any different about terrorism than the original victims of OBL - the middle easterners? They rejected it.

Also - to talk of the Taliban as victims just implies that the people they victimize themselves are don't count for shit. The women & girls, the secular or Shiites. All of them victims of the regime in Afghanistan. On top of OBL outsourcing of terrorism to the West.

Nobody wanted war in Canada but we signed up to get bin Laden and stabilize Afghanistan. I wish we had known that the Taliban had offered his head on a platter to the U.S.A. But - we didn't know. And we need to stabilize that country before we get out of dodge. Otherwise you just let the aggressive element get back in control. And more OBL will result.

Galloway has already demonstrated he is a hypocrite. Perhaps Saddam Hussein was mind-numbingly effecting in changing Galloway's thinking. Because Galloway was one of the loudest voices & organizers against Saddam Hussein after the gassing of Kurdish villages. But - that doesn't make Saddam great or good or worth doing business with. Saddam did what he did and he deserves no consideration or empathy from anyone. I wish Galloway would speak just the truths that i like & need to hear. But he keeps adding bullshit to his take on the world. And I like my information to be informed. I don't want to have to get into his bullshit and search around for the veins of truth that mean something to me. I hate propaganda. No matter where it comes from.

To me - Galloway is spewing out the propaganda that the very suicide bombers had in their minds when they boarded planes. "Islam is the only way - it is the only light - Islam is perfect - Islam is responsible for no wrong". And I am sorry - but that reminds me too much of George W. Bush & his propaganda machine to want to do anything but puke.

[CHIMO]

7. This October

In fact it was Thanksgiving when the attack on Afghanistan started. It will be four years in a month. It is time to get out of the country and let the people govern themselves.

[applegrove]

8. You cannot leave a vacuum unless you have no other choice.

[CHIMO]

10. Then

Be prepared to be kicked out. They did it to the Soviet Union.
If one is such an incompetent that they can't set things up after four years then they are never going to set it up.

If the intent is to leave it weak and divided then the correct approach is being taken.

Everyone had four years to get it set up.

[applegrove]

12. If the Taliban were supporting a terrorist movement across the U.S.A.

and around the middle east (as the islamo-terrorists had been bombing civilians throughout the middle east under bin Laden for a while) - well then they are responsible for the wars that result. Was America just supposed to turn off its economy and airplanes and play dead?

That is not what OBL planned on. The Taliban were fools for 1) being a theocracy 2) supporting a terrorist.

If one more year gives all the people a chance at choice - then so be it. Nobody is saying that the Taliban fighters cannot drop their weapons and vote in an election. And buy property and have a family.

[CHIMO]

14. If

If.

Well when you see the nature of the product and assume that the creator wanted that product then one can ascertain the type of product that was desired.

But anyways back to slogans.

[applegrove]

16. They had started an Islamo-terrorism movement across the Middle

East. They bombed civilians in many places and tried to create a following. The Middle Easterners - many arab sunnis like OBL - hated them. And didn't follow. So it was "off to bait America".

Read Gwynn Dyer.

[Spazito]

9. Wow, so the meme ' we have to stabilize it before we can leave'

has influence beyond the right wing repubs, interesting. Our 'mission' has nothing to do with 'finding' bin Laden and everything to do with putting our troops in harm's way so the U.S. can withdraw troops from Afghanistan and send them to Iraq. No moral rationale there, I am afraid.

[applegrove]

13. What exactly do you think the Taliban will do if Nato leaves? What

will happen? They will put down their arms and stop harassing shiites & women & girls and killing people who do not follow their narrow take on the world?

At least half the people there are women. For sake - you have to give them a chance and empower the elected government. I don't want to see the whole world sucked into Bush's wars either. I'm working on that end - as are we all. Neocons and their fuzzy take on war need to be put down. So does the Islamo-terrorist gang.

You do know that they only set their sites on America when bombing the civilians of middle eastern countries didn't get them any fans. You assume that all middle easterners want Afghanistan to go back to being a Taliban place. They do not. Only a small percentage of youth from the middle east showed up in the training camps. A tiny percentage. Most people just want peace.

Two wrongs don't make a right. We are there - we chose to be there - we have to finish the job and partially stabilize the country. Or all hell will break loose.

[Spazito]

18. LOL, have you looked at the latest version of the Iraqi Constitution

it is going swimmingly for women there, isn't it yet that seems to be okay for Iraqi women. If anyone thinks we are there fighting for women's rights and are staying in Afghanistan to safeguard them, they have not had a realistic view of what is currently happening in Afghanistan. Other than Kabul, the rest of Afghanistan already belongs to the warlords and the Taliban and that will remain so.

The only 'safe' place in Afghanistan, complete with heavily armed guards ala the green zone in Iraq, is PORTIONS of Kabul, that's it.

[Amonester]

20. I know that. But I hope you know that if at least, just one women

was "saved" by our troops there (although I'm sure many were), then it's better than having done nothing in order to save her life.

Why not? After all, it's not a crime... (as per the UN' SC...).

[Amonester]

21. But if it was a crime (like that illegal war of aggression in Iraq).

I sure wouldn't be for the presence of our troops there...

UN = the judge... IMHO (I value the United Nation contrary to some...)

[gulfcoastliberal]

17. A number of people even on Du think that of Iraq as well

Obviously they don't have kids getting killed over there. Apparently the Iraqi's are too dumb to figure things out amongst themselves without 130,000 US soldiers + unknown numbers of Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, and Blackwater mercenaries occupying their country. We're doing such a marvelous job of stabilization, too. :sarcasm:

[applegrove]

22. I don't think Iraq is well. I would be happy to see the troops withdraw

and the three parties divide the country up. I think it would be more stable than Afghanistan. I don't think war is good and I agree whole-heartedly with everything Cindy says. She puts some reality into the debate about perpetual war.

As to the constitution - many Canadian constitutional experts have worked on it. There is a clause for human rights and equality. Canadian experts know a thing or two about federalism (U.S. does not). And federalism is hard but it does work. You just have to walk in and expect that you will be talking things out forever. And I would imagine that if the U.S. leaves without - even a simile of a constitution - then Iran wins and the Shiite part of Iraq (where most of the oil is) would then be an even more severe theocracy than the current constitution. Because Iran already is.

I was lied into the war on Iraq - same as many. The predatory desire of U.S. corporations to get all that money likely encouraged the rebels. If the UN had gone in - say after Saddam had promised elections and then reneged - then UN procurement laws would have been in place and all those billions would have been thrown at locals.. Sunnis as well as Shiites. And people would have had a choice. I don't see that many Sunnis do. So why with the insurrection.

Rummy planned poorly before and after the war. I don't know if it was intentional in order to guarantee long term ownership of the country. Did he intentionally fail at winning the peace? I wouldn't put it past the neocons.

Be that as it may - to leave - we either leave it soon with a sick little federalist constitution or the Shiites in Iran come in and impose total theocracy on most of the people.

I hope it takes 6 months. I hope this sorry little constitution works. I hope Cindy's message on the real meaning of war sinks in with that portion of the American population who love war.

Afghanistan - well nobody can say they are there to steal the oil. To ferret out islomo-terrorists who have in fact tried hard to spread the revolution to places as far away as Thailand and the Philippines & Indonesia. I don't want them to have a safe haven - anywhere. When Afghanistan will be secure enough to leave - I do not know.

[Spazito]

25. Re Afghanistan, you might want to look at the key pipeline that

was needed and the U.S. now owns via Unocal and, coincidentally, the U.S. began to draw down their troops from Afghanistan once that pipeline was assured. Oh, and btw, it is merely coincidence that the President of Afghanistan worked for Unocal and was one of the heavies there. I am sure all thise is purely coincidental, lol.

[applegrove]

26. There is no place those idiots do not go and turn all trade in their

favor. However - Afghanistan was one of the worst places in the world to be a shiite or a woman or a girl. They were the majority and they were treated horribly. Now perhaps they have a chance.

[Spazito]

27. You are more optimistic than I

The facts on the ground are that little of Afghanistan is not under the control of the war lords/Taliban and that will not change, imo. There are not enough troops within NATO to do anything other than maintain the status quo with ventures occasionally outside of Kabul.

[Amonester]

28. Same here. Thank you. (n/t)

[gulfcoastliberal]

36. I thought their "constitution" was mainly written by the Shiias and Kurds?

Doesn't the Iraqi constitution also have a clause saying no law can go against Islam (sharia)? The Iranians (or more appropriately, the Saudis) in effect have already won. Even though Iran is a theocracy it at least it allows women to vote, run for public office, drive, and not have to walk everywhere in burkas - unlike the female citizens of our good friends the Saudis. I think the women in Iraq will end up more like the women in Saudi Arabia - so they'd actually be better off if they had the same freedoms that the Iranian women currently have. In any case the women of Iraq will wind up worse off than they were when Saddam ruled. Not to mention the Sunnis have no representation - and they were the secular ones. Iraq is a disaster and we can't make it better.

And as for Afghanistan, now a former Unocal consultant is supposedly running the place. Didn't we play host to the Taliban (in Texas!) and gave them $25 million (before invading them) to woo their participation for the pipeline deal? Also, the Taliban and their allied warlords still happen to rule most of the country except for Kabul. The relationship between the Taliban and Al Queda was strained - they did finally offer to hand bin Laden over once the bombing commenced. And the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, were supported by Saudi Arabia (remember the blacked out parts of the 9/11 whitewash?) and trained in the USA - not Afghanistan. If you want to wipe out the Taliban perhaps we should invade Pakistan and its Madrases, since that's where they come from.

[applegrove]

39. They did put equality laws in there. Canada is made up of both

British common law & Napoleonic law. Because our heritage is both.

I'm not saying i am happy. I'm saying there are things in there that will have to be sussed out by the courts. And women can vote. And they were used to western rights (though not freedom from domination or fear politically or human rights).

Federalism is just that. It is a think that bickers and shoves back and forth. It isn't a constitution like in the USA where everything is in stone.

It is a piece of **** but if it lets those kids come home in 6 months or a year - rather than 10. Let them try. Federalism also allows for the country to break apart.

Let's give them a chance to have a document they can hash out for decades to come. Or the Iranians will walk right in and take over and impose sharia law on the oil producing Shiite places they want. Shiites in Iraq have much to gain by keeping separate but friendly with Iran. It is called Oil. And Sunnis - who don't have oil - have much to gain by trying to find a place for themselves in the country.

But as long as the USA is there handing out all contracts to American corporations - there will be no reason for Sunnis to want peace.

I think we are closer than you think.

[Amonester]

19. Our troops don't have to stabilize it: they are PROTECTING

innocent women from being discriminized against, exploited, and even murdered for nothing by a bunch of foolish criminals (as much as possible), and they are doing that LEGALLY, which is not the case in Iraq... To the contrary, last time I heard, the "new" government there WANTS to start discriminating, exploiting, and even murdering innocent women... "Sponsored" by an ILLEGAL occupation!

[peacetalksforall]

11. I thought so. The Echelon countries are in this with the right wing -

sometimes hidden. US UK Canada Australia. Echelon Nation.

[Amonester]

15. That's BS.

I like Galloway, up to a point. If our troops are after the criminals who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless women because of any 'sick' (in my opinion) faith they have, I'm all for it. They love to commit crimes against humanity so they must be stopped whatever it takes, IMHO, because they do represent a threat to innocent people (they're like a mob - they do not really govern a country).

But Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not welcoming these murderers, was not murdering innocent women for more than a decade (it was the UN sanctions that were doing that...), and was not a serious threat to the existence of any other country. And it was obvious BushCo was lying their a**es out to get to the light crude there (Big Oil stole the 2000 election to implement the PNAC's plans), so there's no way we would have participated in that war crime (a war of aggression to steal another country's resources using blatant lies, a crime prohibited by International Law). We expected the fact that, by illegally overthrowing Saddam Hussein, these murderers would start blowing stuff up (and I'm not quite sure yet if they're not on some obscure "payroll" list somewhere to "operate" that way so the war criminals can continue to steal the oil until there will be none left).

Besides, our troops are there under a LEGAL UN Resolution, which is not the case for the criminal neocon regime... And we also are on OBL's list now, so if they wanna blow us up: f**k 'em, we're after their a**ses (LEGALLY!)...


Edit: changed a "there" into a "their" (sorry).

[daleo]

23. Galloway has a point, although it is arguable.

I read today how J2F2 soldiers have been killing Taliban, and I wonder if it is justified. It has been over 4 years and we still haven't had real legal evidence of the Taliban's complicancy in the New York and Pentagon attacks. It is about time the world was given evidence. I mean evidence that meets the usual legal standards - i.e. courtroom testimony.

[Amonester]

24. The Taliban refused to turn OBL in...

Got anything against the protectors of that murderer (US Ambassies, USS Cole... also...) or do you need "better" evidence... (PNAC and all other CIA operatives?).

Enough evidence for our troops to be there, although we wouldn't be there if it was illegal to be there, I'm sure.

[firefox]

30. Bu$h was offered Bin Ladin after 9/11

From http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office, and the offer held good until February 2 of 2002. This is the charge leveled by an Afghan American who had been retained by the US government as an intermediary between the Taliban and both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

[Amonester]

32. Yeah, I know, OBL is the Chimperor's "enabler" (if not "partner").

Nonetheless, it was (still is...) the Taliban who murder women.

Catholics and Christians also did hundred years ago (still do?)

[daleo]

33. It's been four years, we deserve more than that.

They could lay charges against the thousands of people that have been arrested, and get public courtroom testimony. That is what is normally done - even the Nazis had trials (Nuremberg). Let's see where the evidence leads. I would be perfectly happy to learn the Taliban was in on the attacks, if that is what the evidence showed.

Bush has shown himself to be intrinsically untrustworthy, as far as taking things on his word goes.

[Amonester]

35. I agree with that. But Canada is part of the UN and has been

involved in many other operations under UN resolutions before.

If such public courtroom testimonies are necessary (and they might be, IMHO too), then it's UN's job to clarify that and make sure there is some kind of follow up on that... But, of course, since Bolton is there to destroy it as much as he can, I doubt the UN will find the time it would need to implement a review on that resolution as long as this criminal (from another "mob") will be there to "disrupt" it...

[daleo]

37. I think the Afghanistan operation may still be justifiable

But it is fast approaching a tipping point. We need to see evidence that the Taliban supported the attacks on the U.S., and evidence that there is progress in stabilizing Afghanistan. Probably one can't happen without the other. We just can't expect the people of Afghanistan to accept western troops on their territory forever. The Soviets tried that and look where it got them.

[Laughing Mirror]

41. ... because they asked US for evidence and US said we don't need evidence

"We are going to bomb Afghanistan, install our Unocal puppet and get that pipeline going anyway. Osama Bin Laden be dammed."

And that's what happened.

[enigma000]

42. How's that pipeline coming, anyway? n/t

[Laughing Mirror]

45. First the military installations everywhere in Afghanistan

It IS the gateway to Asia, after all. And we MUST be there for strategic reasons. Pipelines were only part of the plan.

[Amonester]

31. I'd like to ask Galloway how he would protect the candidate:

I know that, perhaps he would mention the criminals involved were not identified, and I would say he's got a point (four CAN soldiers have been killed by a USAF pilot...).

Afghan woman election candidate attacked
Date: 15/09/05

An Afghan woman candidate in Sunday's elections has been wounded in a gun attack, officials say.

The attack is the latest in a string of violence against people taking part in the polls.

Afghans will vote on Sunday for a new national assembly for the first time since 1969, as well as councils in all 34 of the country's provinces.

Gunmen open fire on the woman candidate for a national assembly seat, Hawa Nuristani, while she was campaigning in the eastern province of Nuristan on Wednesday.

...more...

http://seven.com.au/news/topstories/107438

[AX10]

43. Bullshit!

Canada took a ton of shit for opposing DAS FURHER'S war.

This is why Galloway has trouble with his credibility. Saying such stupid things as this. Canada did all it could to stop the war. Bush listens to no one.

[DuaneBidoux]

44. So he's saying that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan makes them

complicit in Iraq? What nonsense. The Taliban and OBL, based in Afghanistan attacked the U.S. and it would have been as ignorant not to respond as it would have been to not respond to Pearl Harbor. Don't forget the U.S. had a TRUE global alliance for the move in Afghanistan.