Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I don't get the "unilateral invasion" point regarding Iraq because it is not true. In fact to me it seem that your country wanted it both ways, and it has never been made clear to me if and how you folks to the North think bush acted unilaterally. Or, are we simply talking WIIFM
|
ace, over 30 countries were a part of the multinational force that took part in the Iraq War. How many of these countries did the U.S. get authorization from to invade Iraq? What resolution did they draft up and sign?
Now you're comparing Canada's minor role of providing surveillance and communications, shipping security, military planning, and limited airspace (some of which may or may not be directly attributed to support of the Iraq War) to the roles played by these 30+ nations who actually went into Iraq at the time (and those who still remain). This is confusing because I don't know what it has to do with comparing the Iraq War to the Libya no-fly zone. Are you suggesting that even Canada was at fault for not operating under a U.N resolution? Well, fine. I think I would agree with that because we should have done so rather than support a unilateral military operation of one of our allies. This is why the Canadian bombing runs conducted in Libya are more legitimate than what Canadian military personnel may or may not have done in Iraq or regarding Iraq.
But let's stay on topic. We can debate the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq in another thread. The issue remains the same: comparing the invasion of Iraq to the no-fly zone in Libya isn't very helpful unless you want to use it, in part, as a justification for the U.N. resolution.