blackbird

False equivalency. So so-called Christian Golden Rule as you call it, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not have anything to do with the struggles between world powers or nations. That is a principle of dealing between two individuals in certain circumstances. Do you seriously think Russia, China, Iran and other dictatorships are Christian nations that would follow Christian principles in dealings between nations who they think are evil? I am not familiar with every detail or incident that happened in the last 100 years and I am sure you are not either. Pointless to pick a particular occurrence and try to use it in a general discussion about world affairs as some kind of deciding factor. There is much more to world affairs than one occurrence 70 years ago. No country is perfect but as a western citizen I support our western democracies and human rights we have. No such democracy or human rights exist in most countries in the middle east. I am not mixed up like some people on here seem to be.

OK I agree with that. Of course intelligence communities and experts should be listened to. I have no way of knowing who was correct. As for CSIS and Chinese interference, there seems to be a big problem with it in Canada. I suspect CCP interference has been going on for decades, but we have heard little to nothing about it until recently. So the question is what has CSIS been doing all these years. Why has the public not been told what is going on until now? Why is the public kept in the dark about foreign interference? The only way the public found out was when a CSIS employee leaked the information to the media. We are supposed to be a democracy. We can't function as a democracy if we don't know what is going on. Knowledge is necessary. The government seems to think they are the only ones that have a right to know what is going on. I would not trust government or intelligence agencies always. They seem to have failed us. Yes, you can study the history and situation in Iraq. Nothing wrong with that. I just can't spend a huge amount of time on it myself.

Again naive. I guess you don't understand how the world works. Many countries in the middle east are associated with the west. It is necessary for America and the west to maintain association with middle eastern countries otherwise Communist countries and Islamic dictatorships will expand their influence and become a threat to the west. America and the west can't maintain those associations without the use of force sometimes to resist Islamic powers and hostile dictatorships. The hostile powers are constantly working to increase their power by attacking western militaries and infrastructure.

That is naive. We are talking about large international terrorist organizations, in this case al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which had training bases in Afghanistan with the support of the government. The Afghan government, the Taliban, refused to abolish the training base(s). There was no other choice but to go in and take control. Iraq was the source of problems as well and Saddam was a dangerous, brutal dictator that had to be removed. Saddam never worried about other countries borders when he sent Scud missiles into Israel and when he invaded Kuwait either. Terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda, do not respect borders when they attacked the American navy ship in the middle east or when they attacked an embassy in Africa or when they attacked the twin towers on 9-11. You comment about ignoring borders sounds a bit ludicrous. I don't see how it is possible to have a sensible conversation with that kind of mindset.

I do debate issues. Why are you focused on attacking me personally rather than speaking to the issue. I will comment when I feel like it and if I think I have something worthwhile to add. But I am not going to dive into a debate about what this or that politician or bureaucrat said about Iraq. That is a hopeless road to go down. I just think the whole premise of the post that Chretien made some kind of earth-shattering, marvelous decision is greatly overblown. Iraq represented many threats in different ways and Saddam was a brutal dictator even if he was not aligned with a particular Islamist group at that particular time.

Nobody said it was. But it was an attack by al Qaeda that killed over 3,000 people. It was something that had to be dealt with on by a multi-country approach. Terrorists know no borders. Hence the war on terrorism.

The U.S. declared the War on Terrorism wherever they could be found. Terrorists know no border and the war against terrorism knows no border either. That has been the U.S. position.

If you going to comment on it, you should show you have some understanding of the subject. "The al Qaeda training camps are an integral part of the terrorist organization. All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as the operatives in the Cole attacks and the African Embassy bombing attended Afghan training camps. The reciprocal relationship between al Qaeda and the camps was essential for the preservation of the organizatison: the camps provided the manpower for the terrorist activities, and the successfully executed attacks increased camp recruitment and enrollment numbers. The training received at al Qaeda camps was geared towards a number of possible scenarios. Although most recruits received conventional warfare training, al Qaeda needed foot soldiers, heavy machinery operators, and individuals who could bomb embassies or hijack planes. Specfic terrorist training was given only to the top recruits that Bin Ladin personally evaluated. The atmosphere of the camps encourged recruits to develop creative ways to create mass murder. The curriculum was based on the ideology that Israel and the United States were evil. Martyrdom was the most highly achieved state which encouraged many recruits to volunteer to go on suicide missions." "Al-Qaida / Al-Qaeda Terrorist Training Camps (globalsecurity.org)

No, I am not an expert on the Iraq war. Just stated a few thoughts that came to mind. I could be wrong. I don't really think it is worth spending hours researching and studying.

You have not explained why the U.S. went into Iraq if it was not part of the war on terrorism and also to maintain the U.S. presence in the middle east. Were you in favour of the west going into Afghanistan?

Part of the reason Chretien never supported the American in Iraq might have had more to do with the pacifist ideology of the liberals. That is the reason our military is starved of equipment, men, and resources. We have few aircraft and are decades behind in acquiring up-to-date fighter jets. It is all because of the pacifism of the Liberals, especially the NDP, and to a certain extent the Conservatives and many Canadians. Canada is basically a pacifist country, particularly Quebec, that depends on the Americans and others to look after them militarily.

You are obviously a radical leftist, pacifist. You live in an alternate reality. A nation's freedom and democracy exists because they stood up for themselves in the world and protected it, as Canada did in the world wars. Nations that don't stand up for themselves with some military strength often end up losing their freedom. They also cannot help others remain free as we are trying to do in the Ukraine.

The Iraq war was far more complex that simply finding or not finding weapons of mass destruction as this subject article would have anyone believe. Chretien probably made the right decision not to join the allies on this one but the reasons likely had more to do with the fact Canada was not prepared militarily and could contribute very little. Canada's military ability is a kind of embarrassment among our allies. That might have had a lot to do with his decision. The reason the U.S. and Britain went into Iraq had a lot to do with the War on Terrorism after the 9-11 attack that killed over 3,000 people in New York. The middle east was a hot bed of terrorists and al Qaida. When the U.S. went into Iraq, the terrorists from all over the middle east gravitated to Iraq to fight the Americans, particularly al Qaida. The presence of the U.S. in Iraq acted like a magnet and drew them in to the conflict. These were known as insurgents and this is what much of the fighting in Iraq was all about. It was an attempt to weaken al Qaida to the point at which they were no longer a serious threat to the west or America. I am not sure how anything good was accomplished by Canada. Canada is a relatively small military power and could not contribute much in any case. Nobody is losing any sleep over Chretien's decision not to join. It is a fairly insignificant decision in the international order. It would have meant very little either way. " UN inspections during the mid-1990s uncovered a variety of proscribed weapons and prohibited technology throughout Iraq. That country’s continued flouting of the UN weapons ban and its repeated interference with the inspections frustrated the international community and led U.S. Pres. Bill Clinton in 1998 to order the bombing of several Iraqi military installations (code-named Operation Desert Fox). After the bombing, however, Iraq refused to allow inspectors to reenter the country, and during the next several years the economic sanctions slowly began to erode as neighbouring countries sought to reopen trade with Iraq." Iraq War | Summary, Causes, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, & Facts | Britannica There are a number of reasons why American and western influence in the middle east is crucial. One is the west's dependence on the oil and another reason is the balance of power in the world. Iran has been working to eliminate western influence in the middle east and is a serious threat. They may be acquiring nuclear weapons which is a major threat to Israel and the west. America and some allies have been struggling to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, but I don't know if they have had much success. The war in Afghanistan was actually similar to the Iraq war in the sense both were for the purpose of trying to stop the spread and growth of the al Qaida terrorist threat to the west.

False equivalence.

One can see why the Romanist Liberal-NDP coalition supports massive third world immigration, 100,000 abortions per year, and now MAID eliminating possibly more than ten thousand per year of the European founding peoples (the Caucasians). Besides Anglos and Caucasians are inherently white supremacists and must be eliminated according to many leftists. This will eventually result in a majority anti-Anglophone population in Canada and along with Quebec, they may be able to abolish the monarchy. Could this be the intention of the Liberals-NDP coalition?

Exactly! And I can see why Jesuit agents and those working for them would want to abolish the Monarchy and completely reverse the Reformation and Enlightenment. Once that agenda became clear, maybe millions would finally wake up to what is going on here and oppose it. Abolish the monarchy and there would be no support for a Confederation of Canadian provinces (which would essentially be run by Quebec).

Trudeau attended a Jesuit-founded college for high school, St. Jean Brebeuf, or something spelled like that. Wonder if his allegiance is to the Pope above the King. The U.S.A. did not have any Catholic Presidents for its first 200 years until JFK I believe. I wonder if Trudeau's agenda for climate change above all else and pushing his progressivism (abortion, etc.) has something to do with the Vatican. Or is he deliberately trying to cause division for some grand purpose? Also, odd how both Trudeau and Biden are RCs and both are climate change alarmists and progressives (abortion, etc.).

"6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {the carnal…: Gr. the minding of the flesh} 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:6 KJV

In wars nations have a right to defend themselves from aggressors. In the case of police, lawful authorities have a right to defend themselves and the innocent from criminals. The unborn fetus (or baby, whichever you wish) is an innocent human who has a right to live.

Hard to see how some would wish death on unborn babies, but that is the kind of world we live in. Fallen and corrupt just as the Bible says. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 KJV That fallen corrupt nature is why God sent His Son into the world to shed His blood and die on a cross. All those who turn from their wicked ways (repent) and believe on Him as their Savior will be saved.

This 3 minute youtube video says the U.N. has an agenda for a one-world government by 2030. Could this be something that Rome (the Pope) would support? Would a one-world religion be part of the plan? What about Canada? Where would the Liberal government stand on such things?

When Michael says no, then we know we are onto something here.

Many false churches are working toward a one world religion, but such a conglomeration will be a totally false religion. The Bible opposes that sort of thing. Many Bible experts say a one world religion is prophesied to be coming and will be under the rule of the anti-Christ. Perhaps a one-world government will arrive at the same time as a one-world religion of the Anti-Christ. I can see Rome supporting that sort of thing. It is a powerful political-religious system. "5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." Revelation 17:5, 6 KJV

Most of Canada's Prime Ministers in its history have been Roman Catholic. Even in the past 50 years, every PM except for one or two have been RC. What effect has this had on Canada? Does it explain the obvious ungodliness of Canada's laws as one of the most liberal/progressive countries in the world? Even if technically Rome seems to disagree with much of liberalism, it does nothing about it. The end result is Liberal governments (and Conservative) do what they feel like with impunity, even from their church. Canada is one of the most liberal countries in the world with abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and now medical assistance in dying. It is far more liberal than almost any other country. I personally cannot see much positive in it and far more negative outcomes. The religion never did follow the Bible other than take the name of Christ and Christianity, but from then on, it invented its own dogmas and rituals that have nothing to do with biblical Christianity or the Bible. The problem seems to be with it, it creates in its followers a belief that they are on the right track and therefore blinds them to the actual Biblical truth. Hence you have people like Trudeau shouting from the mountain tops that women have the "right" to abort their babies and sending taxpayer money around the world to support more abortions. Anything becomes a "right" in there humanist ideology. Pope, in Hungary, warns of rising nationalism in Europe, appeals for accepting migrants (msn.com) Is the Vatican (Papacy) pushing the west more toward Globalism and a one world government? This youtube video shows how Rome is working toward a one-world religion and government. The tool that will make one world government possible... you guessed it.... climate change / global warming. This is the tool that is being used to bring the world together under a one-world government.

Does biology matter?