More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

[Segnosaur]

For those who had followed the previous thread about Canada and its stance on the Iraq war, there are a few other things to note:

A recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that most people were against the war. However, the strongest opposition to the war came from Quebec (something like 80% opposed). Once Quebec is factored out, support for and against the war is almost even (around 47-48%). Albertans support the war most strongly.
See: http://www.ipsosreid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_cdn.cfm?id_to_view=1770

The Montreal Canadiens have to play a video by Jean Beliveau before hockey games where he talks about 'fair play' to try to reduce the booing of the American national anthem. (I understand people in the States have started to boo the Canadian antem.)

And finally, Canadian networks have shown video footage of captured coalition soldiers in Iraq. (American networks for the most part did not show the video.) The broadcasting of the footage was done against requests from the Pentagon, and may actually be against the Geneva convention (which requests that POWs not be used for propaghanda.)

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
A recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that most people were against the war. However, the strongest opposition to the war came from Quebec (something like 80% opposed). Once Quebec is factored out, support for and against the war is almost even (around 47-48%). Albertans support the war most strongly.
See: http://www.ipsosreid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_cdn.cfm?id_to_view=1770Last time I checked, Quebec was still part of Canada, thus any result you get from factoring them out means nothing. The majority of Canadians are still in accord with Chretien.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The Montreal Canadiens have to play a video by Jean Beliveau before hockey games where he talks about 'fair play' to try to reduce the booing of the American national anthem. (I understand people in the States have started to boo the Canadian antem.)Your point being?

Originally posted by Segnosaur
And finally, Canadian networks have shown video footage of captured coalition soldiers in Iraq. (American networks for the most part did not show the video.) The broadcasting of the footage was done against requests from the Pentagon, and may actually be against the Geneva convention (which requests that POWs not be used for propaghanda.) Canadian networks did not use the footage of POWs for propaganda. Whether or not the Pentagon was against broadcasting it or not, means nothing

[Frostbite]

Hmm that seems a little nonsensical. We see dead people from the Israel-Palestinian wars all the time, buses full of tourists getting shot at in Egypt and other places. The news networks here in Canada aren't really politically biased, they have a tendency to show everything they can get their hands on. The news networks even mock the Canadian military, the fact that we spend a lot of money on obsolete equipment and only have a couple battleships and submarines, which are in really bad shape anyway (then again that could be a tweaked opinion based on what I saw in the news!). I don't see that's wrong with showing american casualties for the sake of informing us about what's going on. Whereas CNN often jumps to conclusions and makes false or speculative announcements - and correct themselves later, canadian networks usually don't.

[kourama]

I think the Americans started the anthem booing stuff a few months ago.

Not that it matters to me anyway...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar
Last time I checked, Quebec was still part of Canada, thus any result you get from factoring them out means nothing. The majority of Canadians are still in accord with Chretien.

Well, hopefully some day we won't have to worry about Quebec being part of Canada.

One of the things I hear in some of the media here is how the country 'overwhelmingly' rejects going to war. From the poll, that's definitely not the case... yes, a majority are against the war, but its not that big of a majority. (Let me put it this way, more people support the war than supported the Liberal party last election.)

I don't know if you are from Canada, the U.S. or elsewhere, but there are a lot of issues where Quebec takes a view which is contratictory to the rest of Canada. (Even back in World War 2, Quebec didn't want to get involved in the war.) And, there is a resentment in the rest of Canada, from people who think of the country as being run from Quebec (the last 3 prime ministers elected in Canada have been from there, excluding the 'blips'), and the fact that the federal government spends a lot of time and effort to 'appease' Quebec, to the detriment of the rest of Canada. This 'anti-war Quebec/neutral or pro-war rest of country' is just another example.

Originally posted by Javalar
Your point being?

No major point. I found it an interesting news story. But, it does show 2 things:
- continued resentment by Quebeccers to the U.S.
- The fact that some people are worried enough about it to actually go through the trouble of trying to avert negative reactions.

Originally posted by Javalar
Canadian networks did not use the footage of POWs for propaganda. Whether or not the Pentagon was against broadcasting it or not, means nothing
The request from the Pentaon was a simple one, and it was done to respect the privacy of the soldiers and their families.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Frostbite
The news networks here in Canada aren't really politically biased,
I disagree... here in Canada we have:
- The CBC network, governement run with heavy union influence
- The Toronto Star, probably the biggest daily paper, and proud supporter of the NDP
- The Globe and mail, a pro-Liberal national paper
- Canwest Global, and all the newspapers owned by the Aspers, good friends of the Liberals.
That's quite a lot of media that's left of center.

Originally posted by Frostbite
I don't see that's wrong with showing american casualties for the sake of informing us about what's going on. Whereas CNN often jumps to conclusions and makes false or speculative announcements - and correct themselves later, canadian networks usually don't.

First of all, showing the footage is not really necessary in order to report what's going on. Its not going to make the story any more true if the video is shown.

Secondly, it wasn't casulties that were being shown, it was POWs. That is a very big difference. It is actually against the Geneva convention for prisoners to be made objects of "public curiosity". (And its not just the American goverment that says that; the Red Cross agrees. See: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prisoners ). Showing the video shows insensitivity to the Americans, in particular the families of the captured soldiers.

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Well, hopefully some day we won't have to worry about Quebec being part of Canada.Feck you! (Yes, you guessed it, I'm one of those Quebeccers)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
One of the things I hear in some of the media here is how the country 'overwhelmingly' rejects going to war. From the poll, that's definitely not the case... yes, a majority are against the war, but its not that big of a majority. (Let me put it this way, more people support the war than supported the Liberal party last election.)Point. But a majority is still a majority. So Chretien's decision was still the right one.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
I don't know if you are from Canada, the U.S. or elsewhere, but there are a lot of issues where Quebec takes a view which is contratictory to the rest of Canada. (Even back in World War 2, Quebec didn't want to get involved in the war.) And, there is a resentment in the rest of Canada, from people who think of the country as being run from Quebec (the last 3 prime ministers elected in Canada have been from there, excluding the 'blips'), and the fact that the federal government spends a lot of time and effort to 'appease' Quebec, to the detriment of the rest of Canada. This 'anti-war Quebec/neutral or pro-war rest of country' is just another example.Let's just say that the popular oppinion here is pretty much the contrary. Of course, it's all crap anyways. I just can't wait for the Parti Quebecois to go away! (It's election time right now.)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
No major point. I found it an interesting news story. But, it does show 2 things:
- continued resentment by Quebeccers to the U.S.
- The fact that some people are worried enough about it to actually go through the trouble of trying to avert negative reactions.Actually, until now, there wasn't much resentment towards the U.S. The resentment was caused by people's oppinions on the war, not the other way around.

[FFed]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Well, hopefully some day we won't have to worry about Quebec being part of Canada.

Ya, hopefully they will be gone.

What bothers me about the CBC is that they go out of their way to try and be equal. On call in shows, they try and even out the calls so one is pro, the next is con, the next is pro, etc.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Secondly, it wasn't casulties that were being shown, it was POWs. That is a very big difference. It is actually against the Geneva convention for prisoners to be made objects of "public curiosity". (And its not just the American goverment that says that; the Red Cross agrees. See: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prisoners ). Showing the video shows insensitivity to the Americans, in particular the families of the captured soldiers.

Actually, there were casualties shown. Five dead US soldiers in a pool of dried blood. Shot in the stomach, back and chest. You can see Iraqi workers handling them and immediately after that you get to see the POW's getting questioned. They are of course in a state of shock.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar
Feck you! (Yes, you guessed it, I'm one of those Quebeccers)

Oh good, at least I'm insulting the right province :-)

Actually I was kidding about Quebec leaving. But I do find the whole situation frustrating. First, Quebec will only vote for a leader that's from Quebec (and one that will ignore the rest of the country), then they vote in a sepratist party that wants to take Quebec out of confederation. Although I would like Quebec to stay in confederation, I am very tired of the 'games' that are played, and I don't want any more appeasement. (Frankly I think we could have cured the whole problem had we had someone like the Alliance party in power, who might have been willing to call Quebec's bluff.)

Quebec: "We want to separate"
Rest of Canada: "Ok, bye and good luck"
Quebec: "Wait, you're letting us go? Aren't you going to give us more money to stay?"
Rest of Canada: "No"
Quebec: "Well, maybe we can stay a little longer."

Originally posted by Javalar
Point. But a majority is still a majority. So Chretien's decision was still the right one.

It depends if the politicians running the country by opinion polls is a good thing. I'd like to think of a leader as someone willing to risk taking a less than popular stand in the short run, if it turns out to be the right decision in the long run (especially if the government has information not available to the general public, or the issue is very complex). I think the war is just one such decision. (Even if someone is against the war, they must see that the U.S. can really cause Canada a lot of problems if they decide to stop playing nice.)

Of course, if they really did use opinion polls for everything, Cretien would be gone, the GST would be abolished, the gun control bill would probably be eliminated, etc. So, what they decide to follow the 'majority' on is very selective. Why is the majority on this point so much more important than the majorities on the other areas? (More people in the country probably want Cretien gone than oppose the war.)

Originally posted by Javalar

Let's just say that the popular oppinion here is pretty much the contrary. Of course, it's all crap anyways. I just can't wait for the Parti Quebecois to go away! (It's election time right now.)

Last I heard, the PQ was leading in the polls (after offering everthing under the sun, like 4 day work weeks to new parents).

Originally posted by Javalar

Actually, until now, there wasn't much resentment towards the U.S. The resentment was caused by people's oppinions on the war, not the other way around.
Not quite sure what you mean.. resentment caused by who's opinions on the war? The U.S. people? The Quebec people?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by FFed

Ya, hopefully they will be gone.

What bothers me about the CBC is that they go out of their way to try and be equal. On call in shows, they try and even out the calls so one is pro, the next is con, the next is pro, etc.
The criticism I've heard about the 'Town Hall' meetings on the CBC is that they stack them with virtually all left-leaning people. (I never watch them, so I just hear about them second hand.) Didn't they have some of these Town hall meetings where the majority of the studio audience thought the U.S. was to blame for 9/11?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Actually, there were casualties shown. Five dead US soldiers in a pool of dried blood. Shot in the stomach, back and chest. You can see Iraqi workers handling them and immediately after that you get to see the POW's getting questioned. They are of course in a state of shock.

As far as I know, I don't think there was any criticsm about showing the dead soldiers. (Still, its inconsiderate to the families of those who died, and does nothing to 'improve' the reporting or accuracy of the news.)

The video of the live POWs is the problem. As I mentioned before (and showed in the link), the geneva convention is supposed to prevent live POWs from being public curiosities. That was the main issue. Iraq was wrong to make a video of them, but the Canadian media was wrong to broadcast it as well.

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Oh good, at least I'm insulting the right province :-)

Actually I was kidding about Quebec leaving.Oh! Then please accept my appologies. :o
Originally posted by Segnosaur
But I do find the whole situation frustrating. First, Quebec will only vote for a leader that's from Quebec (and one that will ignore the rest of the country), then they vote in a sepratist party that wants to take Quebec out of confederation. Although I would like Quebec to stay in confederation, I am very tired of the 'games' that are played, and I don't want any more appeasement. (Frankly I think we could have cured the whole problem had we had someone like the Alliance party in power, who might have been willing to call Quebec's bluff.)

Quebec: "We want to separate"
Rest of Canada: "Ok, bye and good luck"
Quebec: "Wait, you're letting us go? Aren't you going to give us more money to stay?"
Rest of Canada: "No"
Quebec: "Well, maybe we can stay a little longer."Agreed, I'm sick of it too.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
It depends if the politicians running the country by opinion polls is a good thing. I'd like to think of a leader as someone willing to risk taking a less than popular stand in the short run, if it turns out to be the right decision in the long run (especially if the government has information not available to the general public, or the issue is very complex). I think the war is just one such decision. (Even if someone is against the war, they must see that the U.S. can really cause Canada a lot of problems if they decide to stop playing nice.)Perhaps, but in this case, it was simple: no U.N. approval, no war. Even if there was secret information, it was the responsibility of the U.S. to share this information with other leaders. They did not.

Also, no matter how much problems the U.S. can cause us, it's still not a good reason to go to war. In fact it's a pretty bad reason. I don't think anyone would support the idea of going to war simply because the Americans are bullying us into it.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Of course, if they really did use opinion polls for everything, Cretien would be gone, the GST would be abolished, the gun control bill would probably be eliminated, etc. So, what they decide to follow the 'majority' on is very selective. Why is the majority on this point so much more important than the majorities on the other areas? (More people in the country probably want Cretien gone than oppose the war.)Bad examples. (except for getting rid of Chretien, of course :D)

I doubt very much that a majority of Canadians would be against gun control laws. My guess is that most would rather see it's current form abolished considering how badly it's run right now. (They are overdubget by what? 5000% or something?)

Also GST is one of those "privileged information" thing you where talking about: they know how to run a government, we don't. (at least, more than the average Canadian)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Last I heard, the PQ was leading in the polls (after offering everthing under the sun, like 4 day work weeks to new parents).Right now the PLQ (Parti Libéral du Québec) is leading the polls with a mere 1%. At least most people have seen what the ADQ (Action Démocratique du Québec) is really about and their popularity has sunk to 16% (they used to be at the same level as the PQ and PLQ!)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Not quite sure what you mean.. resentment caused by who's opinions on the war? The U.S. people? The Quebec people? The Quebec people. What I meant to say, was that people here weren't against the war beacuse they resented the Americans, but the other way around: they resent the Americans because of the war.

And I should know: we Quebeccers can be real resentful if we want to!

[Edit: stupid spelling... :mad: *grumbles resentfully*]

[FFed]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The criticism I've heard about the 'Town Hall' meetings on the CBC is that they stack them with virtually all left-leaning people. (I never watch them, so I just hear about them second hand.) Didn't they have some of these Town hall meetings where the majority of the studio audience thought the U.S. was to blame for 9/11?

I haven't really watched any of them either but I have heard lots of criticism. The bits that I have seen looked pretty sad. It seems like anyone can call themselves an expert and get on CBC.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar

Perhaps, but in this case, it was simple: no U.N. approval, no war.

Well, it depends on whether you think the U.N. should be the final decision maker on whether to go to war or not. Many (including myself) feel that too many countries have their own personal agendas, which prevent the U.N. from intervening in cases that will make a real difference.

Originally posted by Javalar

Even if there was secret information, it was the responsibility of the U.S. to share this information with other leaders. They did not.

Actually I can't say that they did or didn't. The U.S. could have told Canada everything they knew (even telling them where Iraq has poison gas, or video of Saddam sitting naked on top of a nuclear bomb). But, Cretien could have still decided to side with public opinion (even if he knew that the Americans were right), just to protect his power.

Even if the U.S. didn't pass on any extra information to Cretien, there is a strong case to invade Iraq based on publicly available data (human rights abuses, failure to abide by U.N. resolutions, etc.)

Originally posted by Javalar

Also, no matter how much problems the U.S. can cause us, it's still not a good reason to go to war. In fact it's a pretty bad reason. I don't think anyone would support the idea of going to war simply because the Americans are bullying us into it.

Well, you have to look at risks/benefits.

A simple resolution which said "We support the Americans" would not mean that Canada would have to risk our own troops. So, what would be the risks in that? Remember: The number of people against the war is not that great of a majority, and the number could easily start to tip in favour of war, if and when more evidence of Iraq's human rights and weapons programs start getting shown in the media. (For example, I saw a posting earlier which mentioned Australia, where people were origionally against the war, have polls showing a majority now side with the government.)

And look at the risks involved in the government's activities: Loss of jobs from Americans not buying Canadian products or vacationing here, the American government could be less eager to resolve trade disputes, they could clamp down on our borders, stop trading intelligence information with us, etc. Is it worth it to risk all of that, just because a not-too-overwhelming majority is against the war? (And no Canadians would be at risk in a simple declaration of support.)

Originally posted by Javalar

Bad examples.

I doubt very much that a majority of Canadians would be against gun control laws. My guess is that most would rather see it's current form abolished considering how badly it's run right now. (They are overdubget by what? 5000% or something?)

That's why I said 'probably' be opposed. I haven't seen any opinion polls on it.

It was orignally supposed to cost 2 million (with several million more coming from liscencing fees, etc.) The cost now is over 1 billion, and some are suggesting it may reach 2 billion.

And why did you say they were bad examples?
Originally posted by Javalar

Right now the PLQ (Parti Libéral du Québec) is leading the polls with a mere 1%. At least most people have seen what the ADQ (Action Démocratique du Québec) is really about and their popularity has sunk to 16% (they used to be at the same level as the PQ and PLQ!)


I had heard that the ADQ had actually lead the polls a few months ago. What exactly is that party's platform anyways?

Jean Charest must really be kicking himself. He went from Federal politics (where he could have perhaps done something to help the conservative party), to provincial (supposedly to help save Canada by leading the Liberals to victory), then gets kicked in the head by Cretien.

Originally posted by Javalar

The Quebec people. What I meant to say, was that people here weren't against the war beacuse they resented the Americans, but the other way around: they resent the Americans because of the war.

And I should know: we Quebeccers can be real resentful if we want to!

Why do Quebeccers resent the war so much? Is it because of their roots and ties to France, the origin of the race of Cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

Of course, they were against WW2 as well. I have to wonder what a country would have to do to get Quebec to think "Ok, they're bad enough for us to get involved."

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Well, it depends on whether you think the U.N. should be the final decision maker on whether to go to war or not. Many (including myself) feel that too many countries have their own personal agendas, which prevent the U.N. from intervening in cases that will make a real difference.I do believe U.N. should have been the final decision maker. So I guess we will have to disagree on that one.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Actually I can't say that they did or didn't. The U.S. could have told Canada everything they knew (even telling them where Iraq has poison gas, or video of Saddam sitting naked on top of a nuclear bomb). But, Cretien could have still decided to side with public opinion (even if he knew that the Americans were right), just to protect his power.Maybe, maybe not. But unless I have proof of any duplicity by Chretien, I have to assume that he was honest. Besides, if the U.S. did send secret info. and that it was ignored by the countries that received, then would have given them leverage in the U.N. by asking opposing countries why they did not accept the information.

Anyways, it's all speculation.

(Saddam naked on a bomb !?!? :eek: )
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Even if the U.S. didn't pass on any extra information to Cretien, there is a strong case to invade Iraq based on publicly available data (human rights abuses, failure to abide by U.N. resolutions, etc.)Then why Iraq? Why now? Why do it for the reasons given by the U.S.? Should we be going something good even if it's for the wrong reasons?
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Well, you have to look at risks/benefits. A simple resolution which said "We support the Americans" would not mean that Canada would have to risk our own troops. So, what would be the risks in that? Remember: The number of people against the war is not that great of a majority, and the number could easily start to tip in favour of war, if and when more evidence of Iraq's human rights and weapons programs start getting shown in the media. (For example, I saw a posting earlier which mentioned Australia, where people were origionally against the war, have polls showing a majority now side with the government.)

And look at the risks involved in the government's activities: Loss of jobs from Americans not buying Canadian products or vacationing here, the American government could be less eager to resolve trade disputes, they could clamp down on our borders, stop trading intelligence information with us, etc. Is it worth it to risk all of that, just because a not-too-overwhelming majority is against the war? (And no Canadians would be at risk in a simple declaration of support.)Well, it all depends if you prefer having the U.S. against you or 66% of your own population instead. Such a resolution would only be a semi-truth. It would also make us hypocrites: pretending to be the friends of the U.S. just so they won't be mean to us.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
That's why I said 'probably' be opposed. I haven't seen any opinion polls on it.

It was orignally supposed to cost 2 million (with several million more coming from liscencing fees, etc.) The cost now is over 1 billion, and some are suggesting it may reach 2 billion.Geez! Talk about bad administration!
Originally posted by Segnosaur
And why did you say they were bad examples?Because they were not examples of what you where talking about: Positions the Government takes a stand on despite public opinion. (excluding, of course, those were the government has priviliged information)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
I had heard that the ADQ had actually lead the polls a few months ago. What exactly is that party's platform anyways?They did, until they revealed their platform. At first people were rallying behind them simply because they were an alternative.

Their platform:
2 speed health system
Flat tax rate (backed down)
Education bonds (backed down)
Firing functionaries to reduce government size (not to popular with said functionaries)
At one point, one member even suggested not offering expensive treatments to the elderly (!:confused:!)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Jean Charest must really be kicking himself. He went from Federal politics (where he could have perhaps done something to help the conservative party), to provincial (supposedly to help save Canada by leading the Liberals to victory), then gets kicked in the head by Cretien.:D
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Why do Quebeccers resent the war so much? Is it because of their roots and ties to France, the origin of the race of Cheese-eating surrender monkeys?Don't know, but never, ever compare us to the French! In fact, in some area, we hate their guts.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Of course, they were against WW2 as well. I have to wonder what a country would have to do to get Quebec to think "Ok, they're bad enough for us to get involved." If I remember my history, Quebec wasn't against the war. But rather they were against drafting.

I could be wrong thougth.

Also, most of the Francophone population was led by the clergy at that time. (we sure aren't nowadays! In fact we have the lowest percentage of church attendance in all of North America!)

[Javalar]

You know Segnosaur, you are really cutting down my productivity! :p

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar
I do believe U.N. should have been the final decision maker. So I guess we will have to disagree on that one.

Ok then, 2 questions:

1) Do you think its ability as the final decision maker is adequate, or do you think changes in the decision making process are needed?

2) Is your belief of the U.N. as the final decision maker absolute in all situations? Is there any circumstance in which you would say "This is bad and we should react", even if the the U.N. fails to act?

Originally posted by Javalar
Maybe, maybe not. But unless I have proof of any duplicity by Chretien, I have to assume that he was honest. Besides, if the U.S. did send secret info. and that it was ignored by the countries that received, then would have given them leverage in the U.N. by asking opposing countries why they did not accept the information.

First of all, Cretien has lied enough that if he says the sky is blue, I'll look outside first to see if he is telling the truth.

Secondly, there are many reasons why a country would not act on secret info sent by the U.S. Perhaps they feel that their population will not question their decision, or the information will never come to light. Or perhaps (like France and Germany), the secret info they receive implicates themselves.

Originally posted by Javalar
Then why Iraq? Why now? Why do it for the reasons given by the U.S.? Should we be going something good even if it's for the wrong reasons?

I would say that if the world will be better off, action is justified even if its for different reasons than the U.S. says. (And what 'wrong' reasons are there?)

I remember reading about a British MP who went to Iraq. (Sorry, I don't remember her name, can anyone help?) She was typically viewed as an anti-war type. When she came back, she said she supported military action, not because of possible WMD (which was the main reason given by the US), but because of human rights abuses.

As for why Iraq and why now, that has been covered in many areas. Iraq, because it is ruled by a bad person, supports terrorism, and oppresses their people, and now because we've already waited 12 years, in the mean time thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. But, I don't want to get into the whole pro/anti war debate. (I've given a lot more detail of my opinions on other threads I can point you to if you want.)
Originally posted by Javalar
Well, it all depends if you prefer having the U.S. against you or 66% of your own population instead. Such a resolution would only be a semi-truth. It would also make us hypocrites: pretending to be the friends of the U.S. just so they won't be mean to us.

66% of people may be against the U.S., but I suspect 100% of people are against loosing their job and/or their standard of living (as might happen to many people if the U.S. decides to play tough and retaliate for Canadian antiamericanism by tightening up the border, or Americans decide not to travel to Canada, etc.)

As for hypocrites... We are hypocrites now. We claim America as a friend, and then stab them in the back. (Anti-american comments by politicians, failure to support the US, interference in the last US election, etc.)

And then, the other question is how 'soft' that 66% figure is. Will it drop to under 50% if and when stories start coming out of Iraq about Saddam's actions, or if the Americans really do start to retaliate against Canada (if they haven't already)?

Originally posted by Javalar
Because they were not examples of what you where talking about: Positions the Government takes a stand on despite public opinion. (excluding, of course, those were the government has priviliged information)


I have to disagree... keeping the GST is something I would consider 'taking a stand'. Keeping the gun control registry in its current form is 'taking a stand'. And these have a much bigger impact on Canadians than support of a war.

[Segnosaur]

Ok, recall at the start of the topic, I published a link to an opinion poll (by Ipsos-Reid), which showed that the majority of people were against the war in Iraq. (52% against, versus 45% for, with a stong anti-war stance in Quebec, and an almost even split in the rest of the country.)

Well, I've recently seen an article on a poll run by Pollstar which shows different results. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id=18DBB36D-4CCA-47BC-AAA2-CF168F2B584B .

Unfortunatley, I can't find the raw data yet (I think it will be released later), and what was in the article seemed heavily edited. But, some of the stuff I found interesting:
- Most people believe the U.S. should have won backing at the UN. (I assume they mean that the U.S. had adequately made their case and other countries should have supported them)
- 6 out of 10 thought Canada should have sent in troops to help
- 90% think Canada needs to improve its relationship with the U.S. (This number is interesting, because it shows that even some anti-war people think we need to improve our relationship.)

Of course, these results seem to differ a little from the Ipsos-Reid poll. Any idea why the first poll shows Canadians opposed, but this one seems to show them supporting the U.S. efforts? Could public opinion change that quickly?

[Segnosaur]

Ok, yet a few more notes for those interested in Canada and its view on Iraq and the U.S.:

A new web site has been set up for Canadians supporting the U.S.: See: http://www.canadianfriendsofamerica.net/

Looks like a lot of the hockey establishment supports the war. Don Cherry originally didn't want to talk about Iraq, but he made some comments in his coaches corner segment supporting the U.S. action. And Wayne Gretzky has given his support too. On the radio this morning they played a clip from the playing of the U.S. anthem at the Ottawa Sentators game, and people were actually cheering. Montreal booed the anthem, but since the Montreal Canadiens couldn't win a Stanley cup unless they were given the best player every year, I don't consider them a real hockey team. (Just kidding!)

Perhaps we should challenge Saddam to a hockey game.

And the American ambassor to Canada criticized Canada very strongly. (See: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/03/26/51610-cp.html ) This caused a lot of complaints from various Liberals (along with a lot of "we're still good friends" comments.) Bush is supposed to visit here in a few months, but may cancel his visit.

And for all those in the Ottawa area, there is a rally in support of the United States on parliment hill on Saturday.

Edited to add: And yet even more evidence of split-personality in Ottawa: Bill Graham saying the government "Supports America's desire for regime change", then later says they don't support actions unless sanctioned by the UN. See : http://www.canada.com/ottawa/story.asp?id=89693ECE-6A3E-43BA-898A-6D27BAD04F83

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ok then, 2 questions:

1) Do you think its ability as the final decision maker is adequate, or do you think changes in the decision making process are needed?Yes! Changes must be made! What changes? I don't know. But changes need to be made.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
2) Is your belief of the U.N. as the final decision maker absolute in all situations? Is there any circumstance in which you would say "This is bad and we should react", even if the the U.N. fails to act?Perhaps. This is not one of them.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
First of all, Cretien has lied enough that if he says the sky is blue, I'll look outside first to see if he is telling the truth.

Secondly, there are many reasons why a country would not act on secret info sent by the U.S. Perhaps they feel that their population will not question their decision, or the information will never come to light. Or perhaps (like France and Germany), the secret info they receive implicates themselves.Well, we don't know do we. I don't think we should support the war because of information which many countries might have received from U.S. and they might all be hiding from us.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
I would say that if the world will be better off, action is justified even if its for different reasons than the U.S. says. (And what 'wrong' reasons are there?)The fact that the U.S. has not "liberated" any other country which suffers from the same human rights problems as Iraq is not a reason to not invade Iraq, but it rather puts doubt on why they doing it.

WMDs? - Do you mind proving it before invading. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Links with Al-Quaeda(?) - Ahem, I'm far from convinced.

The U.S. is left with it's backup reason: we are here to liberate the people of Iraq. Sure, why now?

Was GWB all of a sudden hit by the Carebears' magical love beam? Thus giving him a overwhelming desire to help out the poor Iraqis? Somehow I doubt that.

No matter how much they repeat it, it's pretty obvious that's not the reason they are invading Iraq. So I don't see why we should encouraging them.

Right thing, wrong reasons. (or perhaps, more acurately, a lack of good reasons)

Don't misunderstand me though. I don't believe that the U.S. is invading Iraq for the oil. I simply think that their efforts are simply misguided. No matter how much they think Iraq has WMDs (and I'm not saying they aren't) they should have proven it beforehand.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
I remember reading about a British MP who went to Iraq. (Sorry, I don't remember her name, can anyone help?) She was typically viewed as an anti-war type. When she came back, she said she supported military action, not because of possible WMD (which was the main reason given by the US), but because of human rights abuses.Good for her!
Originally posted by Segnosaur
As for why Iraq and why now, that has been covered in many areas. Iraq, because it is ruled by a bad person, supports terrorism, and oppresses their people, and now because we've already waited 12 years, in the mean time thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. But, I don't want to get into the whole pro/anti war debate. (I've given a lot more detail of my opinions on other threads I can point you to if you want.)Then why use the whole WMD angle? Please remember that is supposed to be the main reason the U.S. is invading Iraq. Liberating it's population is supposed to be a consequence of the invasion.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
66% of people may be against the U.S., but I suspect 100% of people are against loosing their job and/or their standard of living (as might happen to many people if the U.S. decides to play tough and retaliate for Canadian antiamericanism by tightening up the border, or Americans decide not to travel to Canada, etc.) Sure, but if the U.S. plays though with Canada, it will have to play though with a lot of other countries, and the U.S. will suffer too.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
As for hypocrites... We are hypocrites now. We claim America as a friend, and then stab them in the back. (Anti-american comments by politicians, failure to support the US, interference in the last US election, etc.)Anti-american comments by politicians? Wrong place, wrong time, but it's till their right. It also does not reflect on the position the government might have, no matter how much some might try to convince us it does.

Failure to support the U.S.? Would you help a friend even if you though he was doing the wrong thing? Would he automatically not be your friend anymore? We aren't 5 years old kids anymore! If we don't want to do it, the U.S. should respect our decision to do so (or not do so... whatever...). The whole "if your not with us, you are against us" is pure crap.

interference in the last US election? Well... uh... Never heard about that. So, no comment.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
And then, the other question is how 'soft' that 66% figure is. Will it drop to under 50% if and when stories start coming out of Iraq about Saddam's actions, or if the Americans really do start to retaliate against Canada (if they haven't already)?Sure, it may drop, but who the f@£k would start a war when only 33% of the population supports it at the time the decision must be made? You don't start war based on suppositions!
Originally posted by Segnosaur
I have to disagree... keeping the GST is something I would consider 'taking a stand'. Keeping the gun control registry in its current form is 'taking a stand'. And these have a much bigger impact on Canadians than support of a war. Then I guess we will have to disagree.

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Edited to add: And yet even more evidence of split-personality in Ottawa: Bill Graham saying the government "Supports America's desire for regime change", then later says they don't support actions unless sanctioned by the UN. See : http://www.canada.com/ottawa/story.asp?id=89693ECE-6A3E-43BA-898A-6D27BAD04F83 I don't see what's wrong. I have similar feelings. No one could seriously say it won't help the population of Iraq.

If only that was the reason the U.S. is invading...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

more and more of the same


"us verse them"


This approach does not create or encourage discussion or allow the option to develop constructive solutions.


We have a right to our opinions sure, but we also have a responsibility to get the facts, consider differing points of view, and consider compromising.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar
Yes! Changes must be made! What changes? I don't know. But changes need to be made.
... and ...
Perhaps. This is not one of them.

Ok, lets get this straight... you first said that Canada should follow the UN's guidance, then you say that their decision making needs changing and can be ignored in certain cases. Although that's not necessarily a contradiction, it does seem a little strange. From my side (and its just a view of things, not putting words in your mouth), you are so opposed to the war and are just hiding behind the UN as an excuse.

Just out of curiosity, what WOULD you consider a valid reason to justify military action? Do you have any particular criteria?

Originally posted by Javalar
Well, we don't know do we. I don't think we should support the war because of information which many countries might have received from U.S. and they might all be hiding from us.


Well, I myself have seen enough information from reputable sources (Multiple newspaper accounts, Amnesty International reports, Blix's statements, etc.) to come to the conclusion that the war is justified. Am I 100% sure? No, but I believe the balance of evidence supports it. Any extra 'secret' information would have just added to that evidence.

Originally posted by Javalar
WMDs? - Do you mind proving it before invading. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Links with Al-Quaeda(?) - Ahem, I'm far from convinced.


Umm... maybe its virtually impossible to prove WMD without a doubt without invading? Remember, in the last round of inspections the U.N. did not find anything, until a defector came and showed them exactly where to look. Iraq is a big place with many hiding spaces. Still, the UN did find many banned items (chem warheads, etc.)

The rules for the weapons inspections don't quite work the way you seem to assume. Iraq was known and admitted to having many WMD in the last inspection round. They were told to account for what they admitted to having. It was up to Iraq to provide the evidence that they had been destroyed, which they did not.

As for the links to al Qaeda... I do not believe there is proof to link 9/11 to Iraq. However, there are al Qaeda members in Iraq. And, Iraq does support terrorism elsewhere, including the finanical support of Palestinian terrorist organizations. (Not all terrorists are al Quaeda.)

Originally posted by Javalar
The U.S. is left with it's backup reason: we are here to liberate the people of Iraq. Sure, why now?

Was GWB all of a sudden hit by the Carebears' magical love beam? Thus giving him a overwhelming desire to help out the poor Iraqis? Somehow I doubt that.


Ummm... you do know that Bush didn't get into power until 2000, right? Frankly they probably should have gone in there during the last round of inspections when they uncovered the chem/bio weapons. But, the political resolve in the U.S. was not there.

The U.S. may not be in Iraq had 9/11 not happened. Not because Iraq was the cause of it, but that act of terrorism made the U.S. realize just how dangerous things can be and allowed their leaders to focus. So that's why now.

As for it being his 'backup' reason... As I have stated, there is strong circumstantial evidence for Iraq having chem weapons, so WMD is still an issue. (Blix even says there is a lot of Antrax still unaccounted for.)

Originally posted by Javalar
Sure, but if the U.S. plays though with Canada, it will have to play though with a lot of other countries, and the U.S. will suffer too.
Anti-american comments by politicians? Wrong place, wrong time, but it's till their right. It also does not reflect on the position the government might have, no matter how much some might try to convince us it does.

Canada depends a lot more on the U.S. than it does on other countries. And although the U.S. sells a lot of goods in Canada, it runs a net trading deficit with us. In short, they could really hurt us. The U.S. cannot 'play tough' with other countries because most other countries have access to adjacent contries with which they can trade.

As for anti-american comments... Although they weren't stated goverment position, the fact that Cretien did not rebuke the people making the comments does not reflect well. (In other words, he either agreed with the statements, or did not think the were bad enough to make them appologize.) And I have to disagree... An MP is not a private citizen. When they get elected, they are there to represent the views of their constituents. Thus, they should weigh their words carefully. If they want to spout any nonsense they can, then they should quit politics first.

Originally posted by Javalar

interference in the last US election? Well... uh... Never heard about that. So, no comment.

During the last U.S. election, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. made comments about how they want Gore to win. Again, the government did nothing to punish the ambassador. (Its tradition that ambassadors should stay neutral in any election.) Although it may not have affected any votes, it is still in bad form, and put Canada at a disadvantage when its chosen one lost.

Originally posted by Javalar

Sure, it may drop, but who the f@£k would start a war when only 33% of the population supports it at the time the decision must be made?

Ummm... perhaps a politician who feels the war is justifiable, even if not all his people do, and has the courage to stand up for their convictions at the risk of loosing the election? (Like Blair or Howard; By the way, last I heard, in those countries, a majority now support the war.)

Or perhaps a politician who is able to actually lead, and change people's opinions to get support?

Or a politician who can think far enough ahead to make good estimates about what will happen in the future?

By the way, the figures from the thread are a little off... Not sure how it happened, but support for the war is around 45% in the Ipsos-Reid poll (even if most think Canada should stay out of the actual fighting), much closer to an even split. And, there is another poll I mentioned in this thread which showed that the majority of people actually supported the war.

Originally posted by Javalar

Then I guess we will have to disagree.
Fine, but I'm still curious how you justify what issues the government should use polls for. When does the goverment say "We will listen to public opinion on issue X" (like the war), and then say "We will not listen to opinion on issue Y" (like the GST). How do you decide which issue falls into X and which falls into Y?

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Javalar
WMDs? - Do you mind proving it before invading. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

********!

Sorry. This is an argument that just ticks me off.

The Weapons inspectors were tasked to review the evidence that the weapons were destroyed. That Iraq had them at the end of the Gulf war does not seem to be in dispute. They signed an agreement stating they would destroy those weapons and provide evidence. They did not provide the evidence.

They were guilty of possesing them, did not show they destroyed them so it is reasonable to assume they still have them.

That the inspectors did not find them is not surprising. It was not their job to find them, but to review evidence of their destruction.

Here, who wants the soap box next........

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ok, lets get this straight... you first said that Canada should follow the UN's guidance, then you say that their decision making needs changing and can be ignored in certain cases. Although that's not necessarily a contradiction, it does seem a little strange. From my side (and its just a view of things, not putting words in your mouth), you are so opposed to the war and are just hiding behind the UN as an excuse.Even if I do think the system needs to be changed. I don't think that simply ignoring it and doing what you want is the right way to go. Besides, the system isn't that bad, but the U.N. sure needs sharper teeth.

BTW, I'm not one of those "No war at any cost" types. I was even pretty undecided for a while.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Just out of curiosity, what WOULD you consider a valid reason to justify military action? Do you have any particular criteria?If you mean with U.N. approval, then if

1- WMD (or pretty solid proof of their existance) are found in Iraq by the inspectors. (While hoping they do their darn best to search)
2- Iraq refuses to continue with the inspections

Minor material breach (like the missiles) and stalling the inspections are, in my opinion, not enough reason to start a war. Of course, they shouldn't be simply ignored.

If you mean without U.N. then I don't know. It's one of those "you'll know when you it happens" thing.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Well, I myself have seen enough information from reputable sources (Multiple newspaper accounts, Amnesty International reports, Blix's statements, etc.) to come to the conclusion that the war is justified. Am I 100% sure? No, but I believe the balance of evidence supports it. Any extra 'secret' information would have just added to that evidence.Justified in what way? Not counting the whole human rights angle.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Umm... maybe its virtually impossible to prove WMD without a doubt without invading? Remember, in the last round of inspections the U.N. did not find anything, until a defector came and showed them exactly where to look. Iraq is a big place with many hiding spaces. Still, the UN did find many banned items (chem warheads, etc.)Sure, it sucks. But don't the reasons for war become circular? Invading a country to find WMDs which will justify said invasion? Is this supposed to make any kind of sense?
Originally posted by Segnosaur
The rules for the weapons inspections don't quite work the way you seem to assume. Iraq was known and admitted to having many WMD in the last inspection round. They were told to account for what they admitted to having. It was up to Iraq to provide the evidence that they had been destroyed, which they did not.What kind of evidence would they have give considering they would be destroyed? Written records? That would never work! ("Saddam is lying!")
Originally posted by Segnosaur
As for the links to al Qaeda... I do not believe there is proof to link 9/11 to Iraq. However, there are al Qaeda members in Iraq. And, Iraq does support terrorism elsewhere, including the finanical support of Palestinian terrorist organizations. (Not all terrorists are al Quaeda.) Then why do they constantly try to make connection with Al-Quaeda? Shouldn't they have added that to the resolution?
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ummm... you do know that Bush didn't get into power until 2000, right?:confused:
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Frankly they probably should have gone in there during the last round of inspections when they uncovered the chem/bio weapons. But, the political resolve in the U.S. was not there. Agreed. Then, they did have proof.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
The U.S. may not be in Iraq had 9/11 not happened. Not because Iraq was the cause of it, but that act of terrorism made the U.S. realize just how dangerous things can be and allowed their leaders to focus. So that's why now.

As for it being his 'backup' reason... As I have stated, there is strong circumstantial evidence for Iraq having chem weapons, so WMD is still an issue. (Blix even says there is a lot of Antrax still unaccounted for.)Circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial. Can you honestly start a war for reasons which start with "It appears that..." or "We have a strong impression that..."? No! You need proof! And if your proof is not strong enough to convince most people, then you do not a case for something as drastic as a war.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Canada depends a lot more on the U.S. than it does on other countries. And although the U.S. sells a lot of goods in Canada, it runs a net trading deficit with us. In short, they could really hurt us. The U.S. cannot 'play tough' with other countries because most other countries have access to adjacent contries with which they can trade.Yes, but would not reflect very well on them.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
As for anti-american comments... Although they weren't stated goverment position, the fact that Cretien did not rebuke the people making the comments does not reflect well. (In other words, he either agreed with the statements, or did not think the were bad enough to make them appologize.) And I have to disagree... An MP is not a private citizen. When they get elected, they are there to represent the views of their constituents. Thus, they should weigh their words carefully. If they want to spout any nonsense they can, then they should quit politics first.Like I said, they did not do it at the right time or place[i], but it is still a country of free speech. They [i]should not appologize. How are they supposed to appoligize for having an oppinion?! Punishing them is a clear breach of free speech. They should be warned to stay on subject next time and to voice their opinions in the correct setting.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
During the last U.S. election, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. made comments about how they want Gore to win. Again, the government did nothing to punish the ambassador. (Its tradition that ambassadors should stay neutral in any election.) Although it may not have affected any votes, it is still in bad form, and put Canada at a disadvantage when its chosen one lost.Yes it did. So much for bootlicking.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ummm... perhaps a politician who feels the war is justifiable, even if not all his people do, and has the courage to stand up for their convictions at the risk of loosing the election? (Like Blair or Howard; By the way, last I heard, in those countries, a majority now support the war.)So, in short, a politician who doesn't give a damn about what the population think, right? Yay democracy!
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Or perhaps a politician who is able to actually lead, and change people's opinions to get support?Ah! Now that is something we need.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Or a politician who can think far enough ahead to make good estimates about what will happen in the future?Has anyone like that ever? :D
Originally posted by Segnosaur
By the way, the figures from the thread are a little off... Not sure how it happened, but support for the war is around 45% in the Ipsos-Reid poll (even if most think Canada should stay out of the actual fighting), much closer to an even split. And, there is another poll I mentioned in this thread which showed that the majority of people actually supported the war.Stupid polls! Those things are only right when they support my arguments! :D
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Fine, but I'm still curious how you justify what issues the government should use polls for. When does the goverment say "We will listen to public opinion on issue X" (like the war), and then say "We will not listen to opinion on issue Y" (like the GST). How do you decide which issue falls into X and which falls into Y? Not all issues are born equal.

The issue of GST is rather minor in terms of impact, it is pushed by a government which, compared the average man, knows what they are doing and why it must be done. It will, at worst, make a number of people grumble.

Now war is not something to take lightly. A government should never go to war without having the support of it's population. It's bound to make a lot of people very mad.

Argh! This is so hard to explain! I don't even expect you to get it! :mad:

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
********!

Sorry. This is an argument that just ticks me off.

The Weapons inspectors were tasked to review the evidence that the weapons were destroyed. That Iraq had them at the end of the Gulf war does not seem to be in dispute. They signed an agreement stating they would destroy those weapons and provide evidence. They did not provide the evidence.

They were guilty of possesing them, did not show they destroyed them so it is reasonable to assume they still have them.

That the inspectors did not find them is not surprising. It was not their job to find them, but to review evidence of their destruction.

Here, who wants the soap box next........ Sorry, but the burden of proof was on the inspectors, no matter how unfair or bizarre it may seem.

First of all Iraq would need to prove that they destroyed all know WMDs and chemical weapons that were known at the time.

How exactly is Iraq supposed to show proof that they destroyed the weapons? Those weapons are supposed to be destroyed. As in, "not existing anymore".

The truth is, they can't, at least not in a sufficient way. What's left of the weapons? ("They made more.", "They surely had even more then what we knew at the time.", etc...) Written record? ("They are lying!")

Second, they would need to prove they didn't build anymore.

But how does Iraq do that?

The inspectors were not there to make sure all the weapons were destroyed. Their job was to inspect, that meant they would check out anything suspect to make sure that:

1- No supposedly "destroyed" weapons were lying around somewhere,
2- Iraq has not in the meantime and is not still manufacturing weapons.

In fact, the inspectors did find some suspicous stuff. Enough to invade? No. But enough to prove that Saddam was not 100% honest and that more inspections were needed and that the U.N. should keep a closer eye on them.

[Badger]

I am embarrassed by our government.

Check out www.nationalpost.com today, Mar 28, for a sample of what I'm talking about. There are several articles that highlight the buffoons in our government.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Javalar
How exactly is Iraq supposed to show proof that they destroyed the weapons? Those weapons are supposed to be destroyed. As in, "not existing anymore"There are ways. For example, Iraq claimed that some of their weapons had been destroyed then buried. Digging up those locations and testing the soil for traces of whatever was supposed to be there would have worked, to an extent. Of course, there's always the possibility that not as much was destroyed in that way as was claimed. I don't know how that would have been tested.

IIRC, the inspectors were either in the process of testing these sites or had scheduled the neccesary work. To the best of my knowledge, it hadn't been done by the time they were pulled out. I could be wrong, though.

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Badger
I am embarrassed by our government.

Check out www.nationalpost.com today, Mar 28, for a sample of what I'm talking about. There are several articles that highlight the buffoons in our government. I'm not embarrassed by the government as much as I'm ambarrassed by the opposition.

Liberals want Saddam (http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=B2061799-5E43-4D17-B718-61ABB8145E4E)
I don't see were the contradiction is either. The opposition is making it sound as if, by opposing military action, the government was somehow opposed to a regime change by any means. The goes the "if you're against Saddam you are with Saddam" attitude again.

Chrétien admits Canadian troops may be in Iraq (http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=9BA1BB19-7BC3-4385-A74E-EFD49A0EE656)
Yes that has been know way before hostilities ever started. Why didn't they say anything then? Besides, Canadian soldiers are in Iraq because of somekind of troop exchange program (don't know what they call it), not because Canada supports the war. We should instead be asking why the hell did Britain send them there in the first place, knowing Canada opposed the war?

Once again our glorious opposition is making mountains out of molehills.

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Martinm
There are ways. For example, Iraq claimed that some of their weapons had been destroyed then buried. Digging up those locations and testing the soil for traces of whatever was supposed to be there would have worked, to an extent. Of course, there's always the possibility that not as much was destroyed in that way as was claimed. I don't know how that would have been tested.

IIRC, the inspectors were either in the process of testing these sites or had scheduled the neccesary work. To the best of my knowledge, it hadn't been done by the time they were pulled out. I could be wrong, though. Yes, there are ways to find some of the stuff. Not everything that is destroyed leaves no traces. But metals can be recycled, parts can be reused for something else, etc.

There is bound to some (if not a lot) of stuff for which there is simply no material evidence of the destruction left. (ex: chemical agents) In such cases, how is Iraq supposed to prove without a doubt that there were destroyed.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar
Sorry, but the burden of proof was on the inspectors, no matter how unfair or bizarre it may seem.

Uhhh... no. That is a misconseption by many in the anti-war side.

The inspectors are not supposed to be detectives. They are there to verify that Iraq is following the requirements of UN resolutions.

The last resolution told Iraq to provide an accounting of all its weapons programs, and it was up to the inspectors to see if they had done so. The resolutions required complete Iraqi cooperation. Iraq failed on both accounts.

Ok, lets say that Iraq had decided not to let the inspectors back in... would that be cause for war? After all, you'd never be able to prove anything in that case either.

Originally posted by Javalar
How exactly is Iraq supposed to show proof that they destroyed the weapons? Those weapons are supposed to be destroyed. As in, "not existing anymore".

The truth is, they can't, at least not in a sufficient way. What's left of the weapons? ("They made more.", "They surely had even more then what we knew at the time.", etc...) Written record? ("They are lying!")


There are many ways to show they had been destroyed:
- Written records. Yes, they can be falsified, but by proper accounting, those 'falsified' records can be shown to be false. ("hey, document A shows 100 pounds of chem delivered, but document B shows 200 pounds destroyed...")
- Examination of the evidence of destruction. Show the disposal site and let them be tested
- Interview Iraqi scientists and technicians, away from possible reprisals from Iraqi forces. Iraq was supposed to do that right from the start with the resolutions, but they avoided complying.

Originally posted by Javalar

In fact, the inspectors did find some suspicous stuff. Enough to invade? No. But enough to prove that Saddam was not 100% honest and that more inspections were needed and that the U.N. should keep a closer eye on them.

Yes, more inspections by that awesome force known as the UN. And if Iraq does something else out of line, by god, we'll show them... we'll keep an even closer eye on them. And if that doesn't work, by god, we'll keep the closest eye possible on them ever.

Really, isn't 12 years enough to comply? This has all been going on since the end of the last gulf war.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The inspectors are not supposed to be detectives. They are there to verify that Iraq is following the requirements of UN resolutions.

The last resolution told Iraq to provide an accounting of all its weapons programs, and it was up to the inspectors to see if they had done so. The resolutions required complete Iraqi cooperation. Iraq failed on both accounts.



This is accurate. The UN and Hans Blitz have always maintained that the burdan of proof is on Saddam and his regime.

Gee, I never thought I would ever read anything posted by Segnosaur that I would see eye to eye on.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar

Justified in what way? Not counting the whole human rights angle.

Justified in believing Iraq has WMD? They have a track record of lying. They have hidden WMD before. Now they are told to follow certain rules to verify that they don't have WMD. They failed to comply with those rules. The resolution from the U.N. did not give 'levels' of compliance... it said 'cooperate fully... end of story'.

And why are human rights not counted as Justification? Yes, its not listed in the last resolution (although it was probably mentioned in earlier resolutions... I'll have to check that.) And yes there are probably worse cases of human rights abusers out there. But from a moralistic point of view, stopping genocide should be enough of a reason in itself (even if the U.N. doesn't believe so.)
Originally posted by Javalar

Then why do they constantly try to make connection with Al-Quaeda? Shouldn't they have added that to the resolution?

Ummm... first of all, although many people in the U.S. believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, I do not believe that is the official policy of the U.S. government. However, that said, there ARE links between Iraq and al Quaeda. (although I doubt it is a critical connection.)

And why do you downplay the links between Iraq and other terrorists, by bringing up al Qaeda?

As for adding it to the resolution, there are U.N. resolutions requesting countries not harbour terrorists. Iraq has violated those too.
Originally posted by Javalar

So, in short, a politician who doesn't give a damn about what the population think, right? Yay democracy!

Ummm... you elect a leader to lead. It is their job to make sure that the citizens are better off in the coming years, even if the decisions are not popular at the time. If they are not, then they will be voted out of power in the next election. THAT is the nature of modern democracy.

Originally posted by Javalar

Not all issues are born equal.

The issue of GST is rather minor in terms of impact, it is pushed by a government which, compared the average man, knows what they are doing and why it must be done. It will, at worst, make a number of people grumble.

Now war is not something to take lightly. A government should never go to war without having the support of it's population. It's bound to make a lot of people very mad.

Argh! This is so hard to explain! I don't even expect you to get it! :mad:
Well, you haven't really been trying to explain it. What, do you think my brain tiny little brain won't be able to understand the thought processes going on in your massive, supercharged cranium?

A simple declaration ("we support the coaltion") would not have affected you nor me in any reasonable way.

The GST does impact us. (I do support the concept, but I think the GST is too high, just as government spending is too high.)

Instead of the GST, think about other issues like Refugee policy reform, where most Canadians want our security increased. Yet the govenment fails to act on it. Or, the current version of the Gun registry, with does affect millions of Canadians (and every taxpayer).

Of course, this last argument would be pointless had our government been willing to 'do the right thing'. (Or, if they were following public opinion, and the second poll I posted was correct, they'd support the war now.)

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Justified in believing Iraq has WMD? They have a track record of lying. They have hidden WMD before.So? If we should only trust Iraq's past honesty, then they would have resonably NO chance of ever proving it doesn't have WMDs. That's why we needed to inspect for ourselves. We don't have to trust Saddam and we don't need to act to hastilly. Of course the problem is that any kind of failure ot detect WMDs becomes our fault. Bummer. Such is the way of common-sense.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Now they are told to follow certain rules to verify that they don't have WMD. They failed to comply with those rules. The resolution from the U.N. did not give 'levels' of compliance... it said 'cooperate fully... end of story'.So I guess it's easier to follow the letter of the law instead of it's spirit when it's convenient. So instead of using common-sense and adapting your reactions according to how much Iraq cooperates and trying to make it work in a non-violent way as much as possible, let's just invade, cause the resolution allows it anyways (thanks to it's very vague wording). F¼ck diplomacy! That's for French wussies anyways!

I don't care about what Saddam has done before. Yes, he is likely to do it again, but then, and only then, would we have the justification needed. Invading at this point of the game was simply an overeaction.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
And why are human rights not counted as Justification? Yes, its not listed in the last resolution (although it was probably mentioned in earlier resolutions... I'll have to check that.) And yes there are probably worse cases of human rights abusers out there. But from a moralistic point of view, stopping genocide should be enough of a reason in itself (even if the U.N. doesn't believe so.)I'll repeat myself again. Yes, it's a good reason, but that's not why the U.S. is doing it.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ummm... first of all, although many people in the U.S. believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, I do not believe that is the official policy of the U.S. government. However, that said, there ARE links between Iraq and al Quaeda. (although I doubt it is a critical connection.)

And why do you downplay the links between Iraq and other terrorists, by bringing up al Qaeda?Hey, it's not me. Whenever any kind of connection is drawn between Iraq and terrorism, it's almost invariably with Al-Quaeda. The only places I have ever seen links with other terrorist organisations what on this board, and it's seems Iraq was merely offering moral backing, but nothing concrete. Never heard about Iraq harboring terrorists (except once and it was Al-Quaeda). If you have any more info., please share.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
As for adding it to the resolution, there are U.N. resolutions requesting countries not harbour terrorists. Iraq has violated those too.Perhaps, but those would have needed to be dealt with using diplomacy first. It wasn't. And we think we can just throw that in our "justification pile", without having tried anything else first? Somehow, I don't think so. Also, what happened to trying to convince the rest of the U.N. first? Of course! The french veto! Those crazy french!

I'm really sick and tired of the same old "the french said they would veto no matter what" argument. France said it would veto any resolution permiting military action. Also, I don't think this is a position they would hold for ever and through any curcumstance. Had diplomacy truly failed, then I'm sure they would have backed out of their position.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ummm... you elect a leader to lead. It is their job to make sure that the citizens are better off in the coming years, even if the decisions are not popular at the time. If they are not, then they will be voted out of power in the next election. THAT is the nature of modern democracy.No, you elect a leader to manage a government and make sure that the citizens are better off by making the right decision while not forgetting about your own population. If you do not respect them, any extremely unpopular decision you make will not only cause you to be voted out of power, but will probably be reversed by the next government. Thus wasting taxpayer's money. Democracy is not about governments leading the people, it's about the government working for the people (as idealistic as it may sound)

For example, here the PQ has gone through with a very unpopular decision to fuse towns together to (supposedly) save money. Despite the fact that there was no clear benefit to it (roughly half of the studies concluded that it was advantageous while the other half predicted the exact opposite). This will probably make them lose the next election (the PLQ has not been this popular in a long time) Also, the PLQ's official stance is that hey are going to allow small referendums in each town to allow them to "unfuse". They have been criticized because of the costs involved, but it's what should have been done in the first place! The PQ could have saved themselves and all Quebeccers a lot of time, money and frustration by simply noting the people's displeasure and making sure democracy was better served, instead of taking a "if they don't like it, they'll just vote against us next time" attitude.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Well, you haven't really been trying to explain it. What, do you think my brain tiny little brain won't be able to understand the thought processes going on in your massive, supercharged cranium?Woah! That is not what I meant! It is rather my tiny little brain which can't find an objective way to describe something that is rather subjective. You might as well be trying to explain it what situations would you either speed through a yellow light or stop and wait for the next green light. A lot of things need to be balanced such as the certainty of your belief in what you are doing, the impact (good and bad) it will have of the life of Canadians, how much is the people with (or against) you, is the vocal opposition representative?, do they have justified concerns?

It's not as simple as simply doing what you think is right no matter how much people hate it or simply following the polls. Making such decisions is hard. I and truly believe that in the case of an invasion of Iraq, following popular oppinion was the right thing to do.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
A simple declaration ("we support the coaltion") would not have affected you nor me in any reasonable way.Of course not, but it's still not necessarily the right thing to do. It's not just about our everyday lives. Thing like this define us as a nation and the government has duty to represent us to the world in an honest (as possible, you can't make everybody happy) fashion.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
The GST does impact us. (I do support the concept, but I think the GST is too high, just as government spending is too high.)I never said it doesn't. But some thing do have more impact. If you had the choice (as a citizen) between helping to chose the government's policy for a coming war and the government future policy on taxes, which would you rather chose? Not everyone has a position towards to the GST (I, for example, don't really care), but almost everyone does have one when it comes to the war with Iraq.

Besides, such decision should be the responsibility of one who we can trust will make the right decision. In the case of the GST, it's the government (supposedly, at least).

But the war is as much (if not more) a moral decision as it is a diplomatic one. Who can we trust to make a moral decision? The government? Hell no! Here, the government is much better off listening to it's population. Of course, if your second poll is right, then currently they are making the wrong decision! (Although some would question wether or not the satus-quo is better in cases were there is no clear majority. But let's not. That is for people who have far too much time on their hands)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Instead of the GST, think about other issues like Refugee policy reform, where most Canadians want our security increased. Yet the govenment fails to act on it.Well, I would argue here that the government did not make a stand opposed to the people's wishes, but there are sure as hell lagging in making any kind of decision. No points for them.

(Besides, when did I say the government always did the right thing?)
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Or, the current version of the Gun registry, with does affect millions of Canadians (and every taxpayer).Ugh! While I do applaud our government for not being to hasty. They deserve a kick in the nuts for not making this somekind of priority. But I guess some rather embarassing facts would likely appear.

P.S. These replies are getting more and more dificult to proofread. :p

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Javalar
So? If we should only trust Iraq's past honesty, then they would have resonably NO chance of ever proving it doesn't have WMDs. That's why we needed to inspect for ourselves. We don't have to trust Saddam and we don't need to act to hastilly. Of course the problem is that any kind of failure ot detect WMDs becomes our fault. Bummer. Such is the way of common-sense.


What makes you think they had NO chance of proving it? Full compliance might have acutally done that: making a full inventory, (not just admitting after the fact 'oops, we forgot about that'), allowing the inspectors access to Iraqi scientists, and actually providing some proof of weapons destruction (documentation, showing locations of disposal) would have actually done that. Iraq failed to do what was required of them.

One question from an earlier post that seemed to get ignored: What if Iraq had simply failed to let the inspectors in at all? After all, with no inspectors, the chance of finding anything was 0%, and we could honestly say that there is no proof.

Originally posted by Javalar
On an invasion for humanitarian reasons
I'll repeat myself again. Yes, it's a good reason, but that's not why the U.S. is doing it.


Why is it so hard to believe that human rights is at least part of the reason? There is nothing that says actions have to be based on a single policy.

I believe the primary motivation is the security of the U.S. and other western allies. But, I believe that other factors are also an issue, including human rights. The U.S. government does talk about helping Iraqis. The U.S. has gone though a lot of trouble to avoid civilian deaths. And, remember, they U.S. went into Kosovo when there was no clear strategic reason.


Originally posted by Javalar

Hey, it's not me. Whenever any kind of connection is drawn between Iraq and terrorism, it's almost invariably with Al-Quaeda. The only places I have ever seen links with other terrorist organisations what on this board, and it's seems Iraq was merely offering moral backing, but nothing concrete. Never heard about Iraq harboring terrorists (except once and it was Al-Quaeda). If you have any more info., please share.


Well, like I said, the most widely known link is Iraq's payments to suicide bombers in Israel. If you do a google search using: Iraq Payments Palestinian suicide bombers, you will find plenty of articles (many from mainstream media).

For example, I found this article: http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/04/Worldandnation/Iraq_ups_its_payments.shtml (among many others). If you search enough, you'll also find news reports about Iraq providing training facilities for terrorists as well.

Originally posted by Javalar

Perhaps, but those would have needed to be dealt with using diplomacy first. It wasn't. And we think we can just throw that in our "justification pile", without having tried anything else first? Somehow, I don't think so. Also, what happened to trying to convince the rest of the U.N. first? Of course! The french veto! Those crazy french!

Remember, this has been going on for 12 years. And in that time, they have had sanctions (which may have cut down on Saddam's military, but still allowed him to abuse his people while wasting money on more palaces and suicide bombers), enforced no-fly zones (militarily), and multiple worthless resolutions (worthless because they were not being enforced).

So, to say nothing else has been tried is a lie.

Now, one of the most common anti-war argument is that "there has to be a better way", but when you press them, they either say they don't know of another way, or they come up with some hair-brained scheme that would never work.

Here's a little thing I learned: Diplomacy only works if both sides are willing to be dimplomatic. Iraq had no interest in trying to come to a diplomatic solution.

As for trying to convince the rest of the U.N., that was attempted. They would likely never get all of the permanant members on side (more or less because they all have their own agendas). And France was actively campaigning against the U.S. in its efforts to get more support.

Originally posted by Javalar

It's not as simple as simply doing what you think is right no matter how much people hate it or simply following the polls. Making such decisions is hard. I and truly believe that in the case of an invasion of Iraq, following popular oppinion was the right thing to do.

First of all, we haven't established whether public opinion was for or against it. There are a couple of different polls, with probably slightly different questions, and at least one indicates that the majority support the war in Canada (even if they don't think we should send troops).

Secondly, there are always inconsistencies. What if a poll says the majority of people are opposed to the war, but in the same poll, the majority says we should support the americans? (recall in the polstar poll I mentioned earlier, 90% of all Canadians think we should improve relations with the U.S., which is higher than any pro or anti war poll. But, if Canada sides with the anti-war side, they'll be going against the wishes of the 90% who wants better ties with the U.S. (Yes, there are other things besides the war that Canada has to deal with; however, it is perhaps the biggest issue, and failure to go with the U.S. can have a devestating impact on our relations.)