Canada's decision not to join the war in Iraq (essay)

[GO!!!]

Hello all,

Thank you for the responses, I will rebut, especially 54/102 CEF. I just got a last minute task to Wx. If I have access there, I'll respond then, if not, next wknd.

Keep em comin!

GO!!!

 

[54/102 CEF]

GO

Its not a debate - so don`t rebut

REWRITE it or can it

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I read it, and all of the responses. 

First off, I personally think that it is a well-written essay.

Secondly, while I don't know why 54/102 CEF seems to think that he is a professor of sorts, most of his arguments and comments are ill thought out, and even contradictory. 

I actually took the time to look up the definition of the word "essay", which is included in the subject line:

" A short literary composition on a single subject, usually presenting the personal view of the author."

The "personal view of the author" does NOT require footnotes, although they must be used if the author in question uses quotes from texts.  I must have missed those.

Michael Dorosh had a few good points. 

Remember, that while an essay is presenting your personal view, the essay is used to define and explain your views, and while doing so, you are trying to get your target audience to accept, maybe even adopt, your point of view.

Looking forward to your revised version!

 

[54/102 CEF]

I'm a student not a prof and if you hand this in as is - expect to get flak.

GO has some good ideas - he invited comment on his ideas - but thinking its really good isn't commenting on his ideas. He needs help so he moves ahead on thinking about the complicated problem of why we didn't go into Iraq. The means to break this puzzle down is known as critical analyisis - if you just start writing you will get lots of words that sound good, but you may be way off your target. Critical analysis can be learned by anyone to define their ideas or read someone else's work

GO - keep writing! Feel free to PM me.

Critical Analysis Templates from the Web

********** = seems to be really relevant


********** http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm

********** http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/coia.htm

********** http://www.onpower.org/history_gulf.html

http://www.naz.edu:9000/~srmurphy/critical_review.htm

http://www.kosmicki.com/102/creview.htm

http://www.bretagdesigns.com/printables/Writing%20a%20Critical%20Analysis.pdf

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/design_flaws_wh.html

http://www.catholicrestoration.org/library/ratzinger_dominus.htm

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/langc/skills/conc-det.html

http://www.glam.ac.uk/hass/resources/Psychology/resourcedocs/Critical%20Analysis%20Skills.doc

http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/laender/persischer_golf/saudi_curriculum_critic_09_11_04.pdf

http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biopharm/critanal.htm

http://mclennan.mbs.edu/nwtoolsguides/nwsubjectbiblioghraphies/CriticalAnalysisPathfinder.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891415637/103-1641329-8308661?v=glance

********** http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/97-0150.pdf

http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/iraq.html

http://www.csis.org/features/attackoniraq_backgroundcord.pdf

********** http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/coia.htm

********** http://www.onpower.org/history_gulf.html

 

[Cloud Cover]

Someday, someone will write an article about the war in this thread. :

 

[SpruceTree]

GO,
I don't have time to go into detail, but I'll say one or two things. .


"The reasons for the Canadian government not participating in the Iraq war can most easily be separated into the two areas of political and strategic/military. " This is an awkward statement. Reword..


"Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security"." WATCH OUT FOR RUN_ON SENTENCES- you can break this up and make it easier to read.

"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked."

I find when writing introductions that clarity is everything. In your intro simply write, "This paper will discuss/argue/posit/propose/portray/pontificate/demonstrate/perambulate/alliterate/attempt to prove/convince the....." or if your prof lets you, " I will argue that the.....can be best understood by....." Tell the reader exactly what your thesis is in the clearest language. Be wary of excess wordiness. 

 

[SpruceTree]

More on your intro:
Briefly summarise the Iraq War origins and such. Something along the the lines of "In 2003 the United States.....Iraq.... Failing to achieve UN support.... WMD inspections...Canada declined participation...." instead of launching into vague statements about Iraq War and Canada. It better informs your reader with the issues at hand and provides the context for your argument. Never assume your audience is knows what you talking about. You are trying to convince them of the merits of your position on a complex issue so you need to ensure they are on the same page as you.

 

[Glorified Ape]

GO,
I don't have time to go into detail, but I'll say one or two things. .


"The reasons for the Canadian government not participating in the Iraq war can most easily be separated into the two areas of political and strategic/military. " This is an awkward statement. Reword..


"Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security"." WATCH OUT FOR RUN_ON SENTENCES- you can break this up and make it easier to read.

"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked."

I find when writing introductions that clarity is everything. In your intro simply write, "This paper will discuss/argue/posit/propose/portray/pontificate/demonstrate/perambulate/alliterate/attempt to prove/convince the....." or if your prof lets you, " I will argue that the.....can be best understood by....." Tell the reader exactly what your thesis is in the clearest language. Be wary of excess wordiness.  

"Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security"."

I don't think this is a run-on sentence; just that the wording/commas should be changed thusly:

"Political reasons for the lack of participation are, by their nature, the most subjective and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are less subjective, more easily quantifiable, and equally as easy to conceal, especially when done so under the auspices of "national security". "

This one is just awkward:

"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked."

Clearer this way, methinks:

"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, regardless of non-participation, is a valid inquiry and one that must be explored. The necessity for inquiry is compounded when consideration is given to the fact that such support would have produced substantial benefits. "

 

[GO!!!]

<back at home>

Thank you to everyone for your contributions to this thread, I did some minor last minute re-workings of a number of awkward and long sentances, and sent the paper off.

I agree that several of the sentances and statements that Glorified Ape, Spruce, Michael Dorosh and others brought up needed to be re-adjusted. Due to the wonders of e-mail, my essay was marked and returned in 36 hrs, and your combined input was invaluable, as was demonstrated in the final mark - 89%!!

I will try not to make a habit of posting my papers for the purposes of proofreading (it is supposed to be my work) but I had a great deal of difficulty with this one - thanks again!

One more thing, this is the last paper of the semester, and this prof has demanded all along that there be no "fence sitting" or boring papers. He has stated that he wants strong language and an "entertaining" read - that you will never get your message accross with a boring paper. That's why some of it may come accross as a rant.

54/102 CEF - Some of your comments were helpful, but to set the record straight Op Apollo was not only Navy, and I feel somewhat qualified to make statements on what we did and did not do in Afghanistan in 2002 because I was there.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

<back at home>

I agree that several of the sentances and statements that Glorified Ape, Spruce, Michael Dorosh and others brought up needed to be re-adjusted. Due to the wonders of e-mail, my essay was marked and returned in 36 hrs, and your combined input was invaluable, as was demonstrated in the final mark - 89%!!

I agreed with far more than I disagreed, but due to space considerations, most of my "positive" comments had to be edited out.  I am glad your prof agreed with my conclusion, ie that it was a well written article that proved the thesis put forth.  I'd be interested in seeing future papers for proofreading or interest's sake.  Congratulations on the mark; well deserved.

 

[Danjanou]

Sorry didn't see this until now, although I really doubt the original author needed more advice on where to place his commas.  8)

Good initial essay, and some very good comments, assistance in fine tuning it here. GO sounds like the mark was well earned.

I agree with MD, we do have both a good collection of military academics for want of a better term who are very knowledgeable in a wide variety of areas here ( look at the lenght some of the threads relating to tactics, politics etc have gone to) and a willingness to help each out. Seems like yet another natural use for this place.

 

[tomahawk6]

Canada's decision to side with France-German led opposition placed Canada in the EU camp. It was a political decision that was sure to strain relations with the US. Canada had Chretien wanted to do so could have supported the coalition without providing ground forces similar to the contribution made in Desert Storm. Essentially moral support. However, I think he wanted to show his independence and solidarity with France. My problem is that if allies can pick and chose their fights the alliance isnt worth much. If during WW2 Canada had decided to sit it out, Britian would have felt betrayed. I think an ally has to sign on politically but are free to decide their military participation in any particular enterprise.

It has been reported that in 2002 France offered 18,000 troops but wanted a zone of responsibility covering Baghdad, presumably to cover their dealings with Saddam. This would not have been attractive to the US as the experience with France in Bosnia was not one that we would want to replicate. Had France joined the coalition would Chretien have supported the invasion of Iraq ? I think he would have.

 

[a_majoor]

Canada's decision to side with France-German led opposition placed Canada in the EU camp. It was a political decision that was sure to strain relations with the US. Canada had Chretien wanted to do so could have supported the coalition without providing ground forces similar to the contribution made in Desert Storm. Essentially moral support. However, I think he wanted to show his independence and solidarity with France. My problem is that if allies can pick and chose their fights the alliance isnt worth much. If during WW2 Canada had decided to sit it out, Britian would have felt betrayed. I think an ally has to sign on politically but are free to decide their military participation in any particular enterprise.

Although this has put us in the "EU Camp", I don't see too many positive consequences for Canada out of this. How much has Canadian trade increased to our new "friends", for example?

It has been reported that in 2002 France offered 18,000 troops but wanted a zone of responsibility covering Baghdad, presumably to cover their dealings with Saddam. This would not have been attractive to the US as the experience with France in Bosnia was not one that we would want to replicate. Had France joined the coalition would Chretien have supported the invasion of Iraq ? I think he would have.

I wonder. Anti-Americanism is a very potent force in the Canadian body politic, and would most likely have trumped any small and residual Pro-French tendencies. Since France hardly comports herself as a Canadian friend or ally, I don't think French participation would have influenced Canadian public or political decision making in a pro war direction (although this is only speculation on my part).

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually it was more of a personal relationship between Msrs Chretien and Chirac, rather than a national position. Chretien was more in sync politically/philosophically with Chirac than Washington.

 

[GO!!!]

Tomahawk,

I'm not trying to start a bunfight here, and my stand on Canadian participation in the war is outlined in my essay, but I can think of a certain nation that "sat out" of the most destructive war in history while selling goods to both sides for how many years? After this nation did decide to participate - which it did zealously - it then proceeded to lend enormous sums of money at high rates of interest to all of the original warring parties, making it the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

How is Canada's sitting out of Iraq any less traitorous than the US sitting out of WW2 until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour?

 

[armyvern]

GO!!

I'm with you on that convenient history lesson. But....blame their politician's and ours for sitting us out on both sides. I know where all the soldier's I know think we should be!! And it ain't here in the snow. :'(

 

[GO!!!]

GO!!

I'm with you on that convenient history lesson. But....blame their politician's and ours for sitting us out on both sides. I know where all the soldier's I know think we should be!! And it ain't here in the snow. :'(

True story - I actually want to go somwhere as hot as Iraq - how am I ever going to find out if we are the best?

 

[tomahawk6]

The rate of interest according to my reading was 2% to begin payments in 1950 in 50 equal payments, but there was a provision for deferrment. The UK deferred 6 times during that period. Yes the US went to war in 1941. But the similarities are close. The US public did not favor going to war. Two the US was not part of an alliance. Canada was part of the Commonwealth which obligated it to help the UK.

 

[armyvern]

Canada was part of the Commonwealth which obligated it to help the UK.

Very true....however; Alliance or not my honourable predecessor's lined up by the hundreds of thousands to volunteer for this "duty."
Those brave men that were not serving in any Canadian Military capacity and thus were not obligated to do anything made the choice to do so.
Much the same as your fellow Americans who came North to Canada to assist in this effort prior to 7 Dec 1941.

 

[Recce41]

It's not like we have a lot of stuff to give, but I think if the UN would have gave the GTG and not this If your not with us your against us crap  We would have sent a group as a token.
:evil: :tank:.