Sorry about the paragraphing and non-function links...

Goodness, gracious. Was that ever a fiery letter by Jay Currie responding to the article about Patricia Pearson?! Ad Hominem attacks pepper a rant studded with such conceptual gem's as simplifying the diversity of views in opposition to the military takeover of Iraq into the clean goal of being "Chirac's bitch." Of course, anyone who opposed the campaign, or supports the premise of the UN is a "Saddam fan" How about leaving out the foolishness of squeezing the world into Left and Right, and lumping everyone with a differnt view into the great blob of freedom-hating-ungrateful-brats? This is precisely the stuff that Campbell's article is addressing... and for that I send my thanks. I encourage more functional treatment about the pressures exerted on journalists and editors. There must be more subtle pressures than the obvious one of firing non-conformists. Can journalists with insight into the power structures of media operations comment on this?

Well, I'm not sure ad hominem comes into it - I don't think I criticized the position adopted by Campbell or Pearson based on who they are. What I pointed out was that the examples Pearson choose were suspect, that there was a great deal of diversity in the media coverage of the war, that there was opposition to the war in major US media outlets and that Campbell and Pearson's failure to pay attention to these facts suggests they might not be particularily competent media critics. There are, no doubt, significant pressures on journalists to toe the party line at whatever media outlet you want to mention. Try having a pro-war piece accepted at the Georgia Straight or the CBC. Supporting the premise of the UN is lovely; it is also futile as the genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo and so on tend to prove. Opposing the campaign to depose Saddam leads to this fairly easy question: if the anti-war faction had carried the day would Saddam still be in power? Seems rather likely doesn't it. So the logical conclusion is that being against the war ensured that a person was implicitly ensuring Saddam's continued rule. If you like your opposition shredded this was a dandy option. For the rest of us getting rid of Saddam was a good in itself. It would be delightful to leave out the Left/Right aspect save for the fact that the vast majority of opposition to the change of regime in Iraq came from the hard left egged on by the pinker elements of the mushy middle. The interesting thing about your comment is that you are happy to characterize my points but seem unable to refute any of them. Hmmmm.

Jay Currie voices the much repeated opinion that had there been no war,it follows that Saddam would still be in power.To this I would like to add that had there been no second gulf war,there would have been no further crimes against humanity perpetrated on a largerly innocent population.There is no justification to my way of thinking for scattering the streets of Bagdad with the body parts of children.

Related to journalistic self-censorship is journalistic credibility that is subverted when pool reporting and embedding become a norm. What is clear is the necessity of a global journalistic movement to refuse to embed in-bed with forces that seek to co-opt journalism, thus turning it into propaganda. See Deadline Iraq: Uncensored Stories of the War here:http://www.cbc.ca/deadlineiraq/index.html , and Naomi Klein's article about protest [and embedding] at the FTAA protest in Miami: http://nologo.org/newsite/detail.php?ID=323 .

Further, Jay Currie, a question for you. How do you reconcile the US government's support for and arming of Saddam in the 1980s with their zeal in removing him...NOW?

Scott, horrible as the limited civilian casualties were and are, they still beat having your children tortured in front of you or their body parts delivered to your door by Uncle Cuddle's security thugs. While Saddam should have been removed following gulf War I, better late than never.

Stephen, Happily I don't have to reconcile the 1980's support for Saddam with the desirability of his removal now. The 80's support was relative to a war with an equally oppressive regime in Iran - one which could do with removal right now, ideally before they build a bomb. The American support for Saddam in that war was disgusting and has, effectively, been repudiated by Bush in his recent speech on democracy in the Middle East. Again, better late than never.

Wow, Jay, how convenient. You conveniently sure have a convenient political outlook of convenience. What about Saddam gassing the Kurds with chemical weapons from the US? Were the Kurds an equally threatening regime or something? Perpetuating a war/slaughter with them was as convenient as the Iran-Iraq war? So it seems convenience is the benchmark for appropriateness. Support a dictator for convenience in the 1980s, then self-righteously demonize him for the next 2 decades because *that* is convenient. I'm done with the politics of convenience.

OK Stephen, so what exactly is your position - that it was a bad idea to support - to a limited degree - Saddam in the 80's and therefore...? I have seen arguments that suggest that because of the horrendous error of supporting Saddam earlier it was morally incumbant upon the Americans to remove him now. My own sense is it makes no sense at all to say because there was limited American support for Saddam in the 80's it is somehow a bad thing to have removed him from power now. The murdering bastard is deposed, his sons gunned down as they well deserved, the fascist Baath Party eliminated - now Stephen, other than the fact that this was done by the Americans ten years too late and without the support of the lily-livered UN, is there anything wrong with the outcome? If so, what. Tell me...I would really like to know.

Jay, the world is full of terrible people. That said, I don't believe that gives the US the right to wage pre-emptive illegal wars at their own discretion. The first Gulf War BTW, was particularly horrific as evidenced by the infamous "Highway of Death". These kinds of campaigns cause the deaths of far too many innocent people and as far as I'm concerned have no place in the modern world. We need to get out of the "War for the sake of Peace" mindset.All war is barbaric. Rather than attempting to bomb other counties into democracy, we should be looking at the root cause of unrest and intolerence towards western ideals and work towards a mutual understanding through more diplomatic channels, which should involve a much larger role for the U.N.

So Scott, is there any instance in which a pre-emptive war is justified? Is there any regime so repellant that it is a good in itself to eliminate it? I happen to think there are. Moreover, you don't have to have full community sanction to shoot a rabid dog. That dog poses a threat to the entire community and those members willing and able to shoot it should. Premptively. All war is not barbaric - war to defend good nations against evil nations is simply the cost of civilization. Helping the Iraqi people by removing a brutal, belligerent gangster and his henchmen is a decent, humanitarian thing to have done. Marsh Arabs, Shi'ites, Kurds and the women of Iraq are all far better off with Uncle Cuddles gone. The UN's performance in all of this reminds me of its performance in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda....hopeless and often obstructive. With its complete failure to act in Iraq the UN sidelined itself once again. Leaving the Iraqi people in the lurch. Hoping for a "much larger role" is rather like demanding a bigger zero. The UN has proven again and again that it is incapable of action in even the most dire circumstances.

There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it… The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth; To lie outright; To pervert; To vilify; To fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and or lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. – John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, The New York Times, circa 1880

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good... Ideology - that is what gives devildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. – Alexander Solzhenitsyn

so this jay guys says "Helping the Iraqi people by removing a brutal, belligerent gangster and his henchmen is a decent, humanitarian thing to have done" jeez do you actually believe this crap? if this war was not about oil then why hasn't bush gone after the dozens of dictators as bad if not worse then saddam?

so this jay guys says "Helping the Iraqi people by removing a brutal, belligerent gangster and his henchmen is a decent, humanitarian thing to have done" jeez do you actually believe this crap? if this war was not about oil then why hasn't bush gone after the dozens of dictators as bad if not worse then saddam?

so this jay guys says "Helping the Iraqi people by removing a brutal, belligerent gangster and his henchmen is a decent, humanitarian thing to have done" jeez do you actually believe this crap? if this war was not about oil then why hasn't bush gone after the dozens of dictators as bad if not worse then saddam?

Ah, come on, Jay, gimme a break here. Don't you remember your grandma telling you "two wrongs don't make a right"? Okay, Saddam was a thug. Who helped him take power, who kept him in power, who supplied the infamous gas used on the Kurds, who trained "chemical ali" in the use of the damned stuff... and what, pray tell, is "better" for the children of Baghdad now than it was before? The last thing on the minds of Bush and his too-wealthy and too-powerful friends (all of whom will wind up more wealthy and more powerful because of the contracts they have been given to "rebuild" Iraq)were the innocent and helpless: if they gave a damn about them they wouldn't have submitted them to the horrors of the years of "sanctions" which ensured there was no decent water, sanitation or health care for them. The whole thing stinks and has done from the start. Do you really think Dubbya CARES , or that he invaded to "protect" anyone? "Homeland Security" has effectively muzzled and crippled the "freedoms" the US citizens thought they had and our own freedoms are under assault. And maybe we aren't getting the "body parts of" our children dumped on our doorsteps but we can see the skeleton of our forests being exported daily in a province where a former premier said "after trees, children are our most precious resource" (bill van der zalm) And what legal rights are being demonstrated to the detainees in Guantanemo? The war was a sin. It continues to be a sin. They carpet bombed places where they knew the main population segment was children under the age of three. I don't know how many enemies you have, but not one of my enemies is under the age of three. I look at my grandchildren (and great grandchildren) who are pre-schoolers and I feel a wave of nausea at the thought of any of them being terrorized. Even in the name of freedom such terror is unforgiveable. No, Saddam might not have been a nice guy but Dubbya ain't so nice, either.

"Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well. The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes. The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population -- 6.39 million -- and average household size -- 6.9 people -- to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves. The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed." (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-executions,0,6218432,print.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines) Well you certainly don't like Americans much do you Anne. What's better for kids in Baghdad now - well they are not being tortured in front of their parents or delivered in pieces in bags to their parents. And anyone who can somehow draw this delusional parallel "And maybe we aren't getting the "body parts of" our children dumped on our doorsteps but we can see the skeleton of our forests being exported daily in a province where a former premier said "after trees, children are our most precious resource" (bill van der zalm)" really does need to give her head a shake. (And I would love to see the cite for the vander zalm quote.) They carpet bombed places where they knew the main population segment was children under the age of three.(Do you have any evidence at all that the "take out the three year olds" strategy was actually used? Where, by whom? Getting rid of Saddam was a fine thing to have done and the pity of it is that only the Americans, English and the Australians had the gumption to do it. Good for them.

Jay- I've read some of your arguments in several places. I think you can do a better job than you are doing here. First, those holding differing or alternate views are not a homogenous blob all secretly praying for the resurrection of Marx. Second, to characterize, as I think you are, that the motivation for invading Iraq was to remove Saddam is as simpleminded as the position that the war was all about oil. It was a complex decision that factored in genuine concerns about security, genuine concerns about the stability of oil reserves, an evangelical desire to spread democracy and probably a genuine desire to help the people of Iraq. Would the US have invaded Iraq if it didn't have oil reserves? Probably not. Would they have invaded Iraq if it had the oil but a government like Egypt? Probably not. Are the Iraqi people better of now? Probably not, but there is great hope that they will be - and soon. Given the number of issues in play, it seems reasonable that people could, in good faith, decide that on balance the war was just or unjust. Some people fell in the middle - glad that the war was persecuted but disturbed by the apparent rush to get there and the abandonment of multilateral forums. So, give it a rest. One can oppose the war without supporting Saddam just as one can support the war while opposing US hegemony. Third, the media is an enormously powerful tool for shaping the public consciousness. It needs to be watched carefully. In times of real or perceived crisis it is difficult - maybe impossible - for media to 'watch themselves'. Sometime a little watching from a trusted friend is in order.

Kevin, I agree that there were many reasons for the war in Iraq. I am not at all convinced oil was all that important - after all the US is not particularily dependant upon Gulf oil. I am inclined to the view that security concerns and the desire to break the Middle Eastern impasse were important factors in the decision to invade. But I am also inclined to think the barbarity of Saddam's regime and its willingness to attack its neighbours and fund terrorism - including offering bounties for suicide bombings - played a huge part in the decision to go. Judging on form the most vocal opponents of the war in the United States and Britain are indeed hoping for the resurrection of Marx, or, more precisely, that highest flower of the Marxist moment, Uncle Joe Stalin. It is absurd to suggest that one could oppose the war without supporting Saddam; the only outcome which was at all likely in the absence of the war was Saddam's retention of power. Thus, to oppose the war was to tacitly support Saddam. Supporting the war, as you point out, does not imply support for US hegemony. And it does not imply the complete abandonment of multi-lateral forums; merely their abandonment when they cease to function in the interests of either the world community or the people of Iraq. I agree that the media is powerful, but the media was far from monolithic in its "support" for the war. The US media, from the New York Times and the Washington Post through to the all anti-war, all the time NPR allowed as much dissent as they could find to express itself. A fact which, along with many others, is conviently ignored in the rush to make the war an exercise in bad faith, greed and repression. By all means let's watch the media and let's start with the egregious anti-US positions of our own media beginning with the CBC.

Jay,your defence of the war on Iraq is beginning to sound increasingly shrill and irrational. The idea that one must apparently be a Marxist to oppose the war strikes me as just plain silly.I also don't believe for one minute that the decision to attack Iraq was motivated by any genuine sense of concern for its people,which became painfully obvious by how many times the actual "plot" changed.The welfare of the people seemed like a bit of an after thought.Further, I believe oil was very much the reason for going,although for reasons other than are usually discussed. Oil is the life blood of the world's economy and the fact that its bought and sold in US dollars keeps America very powerful indeed.In 2002,Saddam dared switch to the euro (the only OPEC country to have done so)and the gamble payed off quite nicely:at the time of Iraq's conversion the euro was worth about 83 cents US but is now worth over a dollar.The one other country to have talked about possibly converting to the euro is Iran,which has since been included in the "Axis of Evil"characterization.(coincidence?)Obviously this business represents a huge threat to American power and they have acted in predictable fashion.As for England and Australia joining in the fray,I dont believe either government was acting according to the wishes of its people.I also see little evidence that the "quagmire" Bush has gotten his country into is going to end anytime soon.In fact I consider the whole exercise a terrible waste of lives with little to show for itself in terms of real progress:Where are the weapons of Mass Destruction? Where is Saddam? Where is Bin Laden? How has this helped in any way in the war on terror? The US should get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

S. If you take a look at the folks who run the anti-war demos in the US, ANSWER, you'll find they are pretty much the Stalinist end of the Marxist world. (I'd bung in the links but the commenting system here does not even admit of paragraphs.) The "plot" rarely changed - WMDs, Iraqi refusal to abide by UN rules, the overall barbarity of the Saddam regime - these all remained intact going into the war and seem to have survived it. (And yes, I would like WMDs to be found and there is some suggestion that they will be - see my blog at www.jaycurrie.com) The idea that it was about oil essentially ignores the fact America depends on the Middle East for less than 10% of its oil. The Euro argument is interesting but rather beside the point; there are highly efficient ways of converting USD to Euros or any other currency. The switch to the Euro reflected Iraq's trading patterns as much as anything. (Same with Iran.) Converting to the Euro represented no threat at all to the American business interests so long as the currency markets function. At best it was a minor concession to the reality that much of Iraq's embargoed oil went to Europe. (Which might explain France's remarkable position vis a vis Iraq - check out how much oil France imports from the Middle East. Aroung 90% of its consumption. Hmmmm.) In both England and Australia the governments which lead those countries to support the invasion are odds on favorites to be re-elected. (The Aussie Labour leader, Simon Crean, (sp?) who bitterly opposed the war has had to resign - the object of scorn and derision from his own party.) The quag line is simply pathetic - there are some people, mainly in the pay of the fascist Baath party, who are shooting Americans, Brits, Aussies, Spaniards, Japanese and various other members of the coalition. This cannot have been unexpected. What was unexpected is that the Shi'ite South and the Kurd North are relatively quiet and getting on with rebuilding after the years of Saddam's terror. The good news is that there is some evidence that the mad mullahs of the Islamofascist terror are beginning to commit their forces to the destruction of a democratic Iraq. It is hard to believe they are this dumb; but with a bit of luck enough al Qaeda folk will arrive to set back that darling organization by a generation. The where questions are interesting - they imply that you believe that the WMDs have the same ontological reality as the rather real OBL and Uncle Cuddles. So do I. There are a lot of caves to explore and a lot of sand to be dug up...We'll see what's found.

Jay: Tag team! I'll be submitting my own remarks to these dimwit elitists who actually supported Saddam Hussein in power. Can't do it now though I'm at work

So jay if you are so pro war why are you not in uniform on the front lines, join the Canadian Armed forces or do like lots of canucks who went to nam and join bushes army of the willing. Or do you want others to do their fighting for you, war is ok as long as you are not in it eh!

Canadian friends of America eh jay, we in the west are getting screwed by the Americans and you are helping them! Any of your family losing their jobs because of the softwood lumber tariffs? I am not opposed to war when it is absolutely the last resort. Not when it is about oil. People have to look at the results of bushes war who is getting access to the oil? Peak Oil is not a fairy tale!

Haha Just like freedom is O.K as long as YOU don't have to fight for it... At least Jay presents fact over ideology, war is wrong, war is bad, war kills people, children die, people just need to love each other, yes these are real hotbeds of intellectual superiority. To bad the world is based on realism as opposed to idealism, now go join mikey in never never land.

Vick, to sound like an old codger - were I twenty years younger I would be honoured to serve in our sadly neglected military. I think the softwood tariffs are obscene and am delighted there has been a deal reached to end them. I cannot help but think that deal would have been reached rather sooner if Canada, like Australia, had stood by our friends to the south even if that had simply been moral and diplomatic support. The idea that the Iraq war was about oil is one which is so silly and counterfactual it really does not deserve comment - but as the US gets less than 10% of its oil from the Middle East it is hard to see why these suposedly cynical men in the White House would spend a couple of hundred billion dollars and many lives purchasing what they could have had at $25.00 a barrel on the open market. Thank you Bill.

I am rather confused by the arguments from the left about the merits of getting rid of Saddam. Tell me what you think; was it a good thing? My own view is that preventing him from murdering thousands of innocent people is a really noble endeavour. There are other benefits, too. 1) We (us; the civilized world) get access to all the oil in Iraq, 2) most of what Jay calls the Islamofacists are gravitating to Iraq and shooting at people who are paid to get shot at and who are very good at shooting back, 3) a rather striking message has been sent to the rest of the world that you may not commit genocide and give the appearance (at least) of developing WMD's while shouting threats at the US, and 4)probably most important of all, we stand a good chance of gaining an island stability in a very unstable region. Why should not doing a good thing for the whole world also co-incide with US national self interest? Part of what I didn't understand when I was marching in protest against the Viet Nam war was the fact that *evil* exists. I once believed that there were just different points of view. That's not entirely true. I strongly disagree with the leftists here, but I don't think you're evil; I think you are near-sighted, but not evil. Saddam was/is *evil* in capital letters, so was Hitler. It is our duty as *good* to rid the world of evil. "They carpet bombed places where they knew the main population segment was children under the age of three." This statement reeks. What possible reason could the US have for bombing 3 year olds? Who would order it? and who would carry out those orders? And how do you end up with a population mostly made up of three year olds? Was this the famous day care section of Bagdad? I am reminded of Charlie Brown asking Lucy how she knew so many facts. Her reply; "I make 'em up."

I read each entry and I am perplexed how little everyone above know about the issues. Before opening your mouth and repeating mantra like all these so called facts, why not do some research and reading other views like Gabriel Kolko - Centuries of War, R.T.Naylor - Patriots & Profiteers, Die Globalisierungsfalle - Der Angriff auf Demokratie und Wohlstand - by Hans-Peter Martin published in german by rororo, The selling of free trade by John R. Macarthur, who is also the author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. Making a killing - The business of War http://www.publici.org/dtaweb/report.asp? ReportID=469&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 Or read Windfalls of War. Once you all have digested some of the research presented by the above authors, than please write some interesting opinion pieces based on critical analitical process, not on media related hodge podge infotainment. I think it is disingenous to ascertain that the US is doing anything to help bring democracy to any place or for that matter did want to help Iraq people. The history of sanctions against Iraq and the behaviour of previous administrations in East Timor, for example, or Brasil, Argentina, etc speak for itself and make my heart cringe. When I read this dellusion of "moral and diplomatic support" to our friends of the south, I feel like running to the bathroom and puking. We do not demand that our government exercise support to our own citizens in disadvantaged positions, why would we feel compelled to give moral and diplomatic support to people we don't know or care about their welfare? Oh I remember now, because of Coltan and many other rare minerals that we need so as to continue communicating with each other. Coltan, we help to kill congolese people in order to have cell phones in order to continue communicating ad nauseum without real connection with each other... then we kill middle eastern people in order to have oil to keep the economy going that is destroyng the planet and making most other species into endangered species which will, in turn disapear in the near future... and so the madness continues... how sad...

Last time I looked the Congo, the major producer of Coltan, was not in the Middle East....The detail you are missing is the tinfoil hat

You're right, the US did not go into Iraq simply to help the Iraqi people. They went there because a brutal despot was giving the appearance of being able to hurt their country and was threatening to do so. A byproduct of that invasion is that the Iraqis are now much better off. Their former leader is not there to kill huge numbers of them every day. I have a hard time not resorting to sarcasm in answer to your assertion that "it is disingenous to ascertain that the US is doing anything to help bring democracy to any place" (careful of big words they can sometimes trip you up; ascertain means to find out something, I assume you meant assert) when you have the examples of Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Bosnia (and even Russia if you want to stretch the definition). Why would the US not want democracy in Iraq? And are mistakes made in the past (if one accepts that the sanctions were a mistake) a reason not to do the right thing now? Again, do you think the Iraqis were better off under Saddam? I think you would have a hard time making a sincere case for his return. Regarding the disadvantaged in our country: Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery." Yes, some of our own are in a disadvantaged position. However they are free. They do do not run the risk that their government will decide to kill them. They are also free to pull themselves up and out of their disadvantaged circumstances. Take, for example, the many Asian immigrants who came to Canada when I was a boy. The parents worked long hours at low paying jobs gardening, running corner groceries, greenhouses, etc. Their kids were my classmates in school, they were the 'smart kids' who took school seriously (and bugged me with their supercilious comments about my the quality of my chess game). Most went on to get good educations and are now running a large part of the country (and taking very good care of their parents). The point is that one can change one's circumstances, but one must do it oneself. In the meantime you are perfectly welcome to go out and get a good paying job then give all your money to all these disadvantaged. Just keep your hands off mine, I pay too high a percentage of my income in taxes as it is; I can barely afford my yacht club dues. (You may consider that a frivolous comment and a waste of money but I don't, and in this society, I am the one who gets to decide what is frivolous for me. And if you think about it that's a good thing. Or do you want me, when I'm in power, telling you how to spend your money?) So on to the point about Canada supporting the US. Picture what the US reaction would have been had 9/11 happened to Canada. Do you think they would have implied (or said outright that) we deserved it? Or do you think they would have put all their might into helping us; their neighbour and closest trading partner? Canada is an ally of the US we should have given them at least moral and diplomatic support in such a reasonable cause as invading Iraq. Remember that at the time Saddam was doing all he could to lead the world to believe he had WMD and he was threatening to use them on the US. There had already been one major attack in New York. Why shouldn't an A-bomb in Seattle have been next? If the wind was from the right direction Vancouver would be too close for comfort. By the way, I did Google R.T.Naylor; he is a "peace researcher" at McGill. 'nuff said.

"I'll be submitting my own remarks to these dimwit elitists who actually supported Saddam Hussein in power." -I assume by dimwit elitists, you mean the American government? They did after all support Hussein correct? BTW, if you are incapable of arguing a point without resorting to the school yard tactic of name calling,please do everyone a favour and keep your comments to yourself. Jay-you on the other hand have kept the debate civil, and although I disagree with most of what you've had to say,I appreciate your composure. I don't have time to elaborate on my position today, but will certainly get back to you.

Hey, everybody; did you ever think that the obsession with Geo. Bush and Yankee Middle East policy that the Canadian left and right share is maybe *itself* a media product? Did you ever think that, since we don't really have many interests in the area, and are not ourselves a terrorist target, maybe all this heated debate is kinda pointless? Did you ever get really, really sick of talking about America and Americans? Just asking.

I agree that name-calling has no place in this argument. I assume that we are all sincere in our beliefs and that we are all striving to bring each other around to our own way of thinking. Honest people of good conscience may disagree. //// We discuss America so much because they are there. Close to us and we can't ignore them. We are to a very large extent dependent on America. not only for trade but also for our defence. Or do you think it was the Canadian Forces that kept Russia from our door during the cold war?

Our "dependence" on the US is really more of a right-wing shibboleth than a fact; the supposed "free ride" the Dominion's taken on US military power doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. After all, when you're talking defense, you really do have to consider who might be attacking you; and to be frank, Canada has historically only ever been invaded, or even *threatened* with invasion, by one other country. Go ahead, guess! On trade, Andrew, I'd suggest the real deal is *interdependence,* in what ought to be a mutually-beneficial relationship. It isn't of course; Mulroney and his nimrod crew gave the Empire *guaranteed* access to our energy -- upon which they're dependent -- in return for our guaranteed access to their markets. I don't think you need to look very far to see the variety of treacherous ways in which the US has betrayed this agreement. As a British Columbian, I find it particularly sickening... This does tie back in to the Iraq business. The *National Post* neo-con argument for Canada's joining that war was, in essence, that if we sent our young people to kill and die in someone else's war, we would improve our business relationship with the warmakers. Leave aside the chilling amorality of that argument; would it even have worked? The Empire doesn't do free trade; the Empire uses its muscle to force open other markets while protecting its own. Nothing's gonna change that, so for our own long-term health, we need to extricate ourselves from the US orbit, and trade peacefully, fairly, and freely, with all the world...

That would have been Germany in WW II? because if you're talking about 1812, Canada wasn't Canada then. ///Could you please back up the US betrayals with verifiable facts? Because I *do* need to look pretty far to see US examples of US "treachery"////But we weren't asked to send "our young people to kill and die in someone else's war" so "we would improve our business relationship with the warmakers." We were asked to send soldiers to help stop a brutal dictator who was killing thousands of his own people and was threatening our closest ally.//// The US is our biggest trading partner because they are the nearest. Are you suggesting we would be better off going thousands of miles to trade rather than next door? On one point you are right; the US needs Canada as much as we need them. We are interdependent. ////My feeling is (and I preface my statement that way because I do *not* have more than a hunch that I am correct) that lefties don't read a lot of history.//// "The Empire doesn't do free trade; the Empire uses its muscle to force open other markets while protecting its own. Nothing's gonna change that." Again, back that up with a fact or two that I can check. And not some statment from some cloistered prof who doesn't have to live outside the campus and has no grasp on what the world is like. The US was the driving force behind NAFTA and is all for globalization. The (idiot) left protests free trade in huge, unthinking numbers. ( I assume from your comments that you are not among those).////One thing that upsets me about the left in Canada is the unthinking hatred of the US; the automatic condemnation of the whole country, no matter what. I find myself vehemently defending the place yet I am well aware of the fact that there are many things wrong with it. But the good far outweighs the bad and that's the difference between the right and the left --- we deal in facts where you seem to go with "feelings."

Good heavens, Andrew: softwood. And a line of other bullying, protectionist betrayals leading back to the Reciprocity debates. And y'know -- I'm not anti-American in the least. I admire the hell out of 'em, I do. But as I started out saying: please, let's be done talking about this foreign country. Then you won't have to "vehemently defend," I won't have to supply "historical facts" that are on the front pages every day, and we can turn our energies to the improvement of our *own* society, right? ... OK, one last point (I'm fired up!)Free trade's apologists have an ideology problem; like all rabid idealists, they keep thinking Utopia's j-u-u-ust around the corner. I *am* a free trade libertarian, in theory; in theory, I'm also a Communist. May I suggest that maybe neither of these systems can work in the real world?

...My position, Jay, on Iraq is that global, multi-lateral action against despots is legitimate in a world where no one is acting like imperialists, while the USA's unilateral, oil-infested, hypocritical condemnation of a dictator whom they supported for so long is inhumane. See Greg Palast's article today documenting the USA's support of Saddam http://www.GregPalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=303 . The USA has no moral integrity to be in Iraq. Try this poignant exchange from _Casablanca_ . . . Rick Blaine [SADDAM HUSSAIN]: How can you close me up? On what grounds? Captain Louis Renault [USA]: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling [TERROR, GENOCIDE, ETC.] is going on in here! [A croupier hands Renault [USA] a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir. Captain Louis Renault [USA]: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much. [aloud] Captain Louis Renault [USA]: Everybody out at once! . . . It's too bad that the USA is trying to keep a straight face through this whole exchange. In fact it sickens me.

So, Stephen, you're saying the US should have left Saddam in power to keep killing, right? If you read a little balanced writing and think about it, you will find that while the US did provide arms to Saddam it was so he could fight Iran, who at the time, was an active supporter of terror activities against the US. (I have a problem with that, as you do) Nothing is quite black and white. With the Gulf War they started to make things right and now they seem to be on their way to fixing it properly and that's good, isn't it? ////Sure the US has a long history of imperialism: like in Japan, Germany, Italy, Grenada, Panama, S. Korea and all those other "American towns." /////If this was "about oil" as all the idiots maintain, then the US could have opposed blockading Iraq for the last ten years and bought all the oil they wanted from Iraq. Or do you think they are going to get it for free when production gets ramped up again? Like that'd ever happen; they will buy it at the same price as everyone else. And that will be on top of the cost of the war (in $ and lives) and the $87B to rebuild the country. For dog's sake, man, don't go repeating all the silly lefty mantras, do your own thinking.//// I do like the quotes from Casablanca. Nice analogy.

Be careful, Andrew, what you assume about the breadth of people's reading, especially people like me who are complete strangers to you. You have no idea what kind of education, background, insight, contacts or balance I exist in. And be careful about assuming the extent of people's thinking. You don't know me at all. And no, Andrew, global, multi-lateral action doesn't mean nobody doing anything. I've wanted Hussein and dozens of other despots [supported by the US or not] gone for a long time. The UN was formed to support international peace and human rights. They are empowered to act to do so. They are a legitimate body to carry out such action, albeit needing reform in security council voting. I'm glad Hussein is gone. But I find the USA's virginal smugness about it disgusting. I'd have more respect for w.Caesar if he came out and admitted his family's and his country's complicity in supporting that despot [and so many others], then claimed to be cleaning up their mess. But then he'd have to send the troops to dozens of other countries to clean up similar messes. That won't happen. And the blockade of Iraq. Interesting, wasn't that the oil for food program? They did extract oil from Iraq. By the way, I've elaborated on my previous post at http://dgiVista.org/Politics/Saddam.shtml . So, Andrew, if you'd like to see some more breadth of my sources before you spew your prejudice further, check it out. In the meantime, keep your uninformed assumptions to yourself. I'm not interested.

Want to know what the invasion was really about? Go to www.Raytal.com

Yeah, Andrew -- you really need to open your mind a little more. There are plenty of other sources out there who do not agree with your narrow black-white view of current events. There are seldom only 2 sides to any situation. Things are never that simple, except in Old Western and GI Joe movies. Reality is as complex as a cell membrane -- never to be completely defined or figured out. Wouldn't life be boring otherwise?!

I think it's a waste of time to try & convince certain delusional people here of the erroneous opinions they hold on the state of the world and the powers that be in it. A closed mind may only be opened from within. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine who those are. And a very necessary exercise it is...

Jay Currie has the moral high ground for sure when he blasts this gem out of whatever orifice he's using... "horrible as the limited civilian casualties were and are, they still beat having your children tortured in front of you ..." How audacious. How cavalierly insane.using Mr. Curries 'relativity index' I think it only fair to ask him which flavour of shit sandwich he prefers, as there are apparently subtleties of flavour unbeknownst to the "ignorant left". One supposes that this is yet another subject he has personal knowledge of. Perhaps while he indulges us, he can digress on whether Gitmo is for 'good' torture or bad. Sadly and finally for our little Jay - it appears his 'good guys' are back to using NAPALM again. Please - revile us with tales of its powers for "good" when used in modern urban (ie: densely populated areas) warfare. You can answer the 'poopy sandwich' question first though Jay - you can bet we're all ears.