bradco

Are you naive or what. Anyone who hangs around with any dangerous suspect who is under surveillance could or might be implicated as part of the suspects group. The fact remains Arar was in the U.S. at the time of his detainment an extremely dangerous place for a Syrian citizen/Canadian citizen to be in a time of terrorist activity. He is the author of his own misfortune. It really amazes me concerning the fact some members on this site hold the view that authorities are suppose have 100% accurate information on the hundreds or thousands of possible suspects being monitored regarding terrorist activity at a time of high alert. "Anyone who hangs around with any dangerous suspect who is under surveillance could or might be implicated as part of the suspects group." -fair enough...he deserved to be implicated as a SUSPECT but not automatically guilty of anything and certainly not deserving of torture "The fact remains Arar was in the U.S. at the time of his detainment an extremely dangerous place for a Syrian citizen/Canadian citizen to be in a time of terrorist activity." -if he is travelling on a Canadian passport then if any deportion occurs it should be to Canada. If it is not someone has done something wrong and heads need to roll. My bet is he purposely travelled on his Canadian passport not his Syrian one specifically to be cautious. "He is the author of his own misfortune." -people who live in the states and are killed by terrorists are the authors of their own misfortune, people mugged after dark are the authors of their own misfortune, people killed in car accidents are the authors of their own misfortune...all ridiculous comments much like your own

I'm not sure what you mean by "absence." Do you just mean to say you disagree with the overall consensus among Canadians of what it means to be "Canadian?" And I don't understand "liberties granted by political correctness" at all. "Political correctness," whatever the hell that means, doesn't have any authority by anyone's definition. My definition of political correctness is that it is just a vague concept drummed up by people whose feelings were hurt when someone called them racist or bigoted. I'd truly be fascinated to find out yours. I know of no definition to officially describe a Canadian. Nor do I know of a general consensus agreed by all Canadians concerning the definition of a Canadian. Do you know what the universal agreed upon definition is to describe a Canadian? Political correctness grants rights including: Identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement. In this country it is basically an imposed Liberal language dictating rights. I took a course a couple of years ago on the geography of Canada. In one tutorial we discussed what the meaning of Canadian is.... the overwhelming majority of people agreed that being Canadian means being able to describe yourself however you wish on any grounds of race, religion, ethinicity. While other nations have relatively clearly defined definitions of what is necessary to be considered part of that nation Canada does not. The absence of a definition is in fact the definition (that was the general concensus)

The U.S. might want to be able to pass through and lay claim to resources within the passage but they certainly don't want China or India to do the same thing. Letting people pass through that claim we have no soveriegnty over the area may be interpreted as agreeing with them (weak argument but you know its something the Bush admin. would use).... in the case of American subs passing through we can question their right to passage since they are military units (therefore maybe exempt from innocent passage?)

"The 1949 border of Israel was created de facto as a result of war, not by law. De facto borders, if not disturbed or challenged over an uninterupted period of time, say at least 50 years, can then become recognized in international law as legal borders." -The problem with that assessment is that the 1949 borders would have to have been unchalleneged since then. I believe there a few groups/states that challenge the placement of the borders. That would be like telling India/Pakistan that the legal border for Kashmir is whereever it was from the end of the last war. The refusal of the Arab nations to accept the resolution that proposed a partioned state wasnt surprising. Having an European imposed settlement creating a state of people with European ancestory would be a complete return to colonialism. It was of course going to be unacceptable to the Arab nations. So yes they do desrve some of the blame for the state of the region today......but not all of it. Balfour Declaration: at the time only 10% of the area was in fact Jewish with 90% being indigenous palestinian. Why would they accept an agreement being put forth by an occupying power to take away land when they were the absolute majority? When the League of Nations gave the UK power to put forth the Balfour Declaration in 1922 the Palestinians, or any other Arab State, werent given any position to negoiate the settlement. With a history of having solutions imposed by occupying powers it isnt overly surprising they werent jumping at the UN's proposed partioning after ww2. To them this was just another time where the west was imposing its will over the region.

Where in the report did it say Dion knew about the sponsorship scandal? Yes yes. Nobody ever *proved* that Paul Martin or Stephane Dion knew anything about anything. The part that Liberals fail to understand, though, is that even though it hasn't been proven that they did know, people don't really trust them when they say that they didn't know. There's a big gulf between "not proven guilty", and "proven innocent". But casting a vote isn't the same as putting somebody in jail. If I was on a jury I couldn't convict Stephane Dion for having knowledge of that mess... but I still don't have any trust in him. As August notes, he was a Chretien protege, one of Chretien's "lieutenants" in the upper echelon of the party. Why would I believe he was outside the loop of all those shenanigans? Why would I trust that he has different philosophies? Why would I trust that the padawan is any different from the master? If the Liberals pick somebody from that same old clique, it will bring up the same old questions. -k {"Screw the rules! We're saving the country!!!"} Although Im sure most of the senior liberals knew about the sponsorship program I doubt many knew about the scandal (especially while it was still in operation). People invovled in illegal behaviour like to keep it quiet and invovle as few people as possible. When will conservatives stop trying to paint every Liberal as a criminal?

"International law as it stands today means that any attempt to 'remove' Israel would amount to crimes against humanity (e.g. violation of the Israeli's right to self-determination and presumably some sort of 'ethnic cleansing'). Accordingly, the idea of eradicating Israel espoused by extremists is completely not on." -would be a violation of 2(4) of the UN charter.......in fact technically any threat against the territorial integrity of any state is a violation of international law (hmmm yet nobody seems to do anything when a certain crazy Iranian stands up and starts talking about wiping countries of the map, or when countless other leaders threaten invasion). It is time states start enforcing the rules as they are written and intended to be used for. -presumably any invasion of Isreal would likely end up violating the Geneva Convention as well I am in agreement with Higgly and Figleaf on this one. Western nations really blew it with the creation of Israel and not of a separte Palestinian state as promised. The west must take some of the blame for the situation and so should Israel. That being said it is important to remember that there are other guilty parties in the region that should be sharing the costs for the damage they have caused...

Fish, oil or whatever is not the point. It's about sovereignty. Canada has not proven it has undisputed supremacy concerning travel through that passage. It looks like that is going to change........Harper has signalled he will assert our sovereignty over the passage

I prefer to think that the GG should have been: nobody... honestly its about time we do away with this joke.....what a huge waste of taxpayer money....actually nevermind, I think I should be GG. I would love the sweet mansion and to travel the world and attend fancy diplomat parties with awesome fingerfood....get smashed on free champagne...force people to stand when I enter the room and refer to me as "excellancy" the only valuable thing this istitution really does is free up time for the PM so he doesnt have to attend all these ceremonies..just send the GG. Im sure we could just get other members of cabinet to go to represent the government, or hey give one of those backbenchers something to do. How odd it would be having someone who actually represents the Canadian people's will (elected) representing them... might need some sort of legislation saying that when a minority govt loses confidence another party has the right to give the whole confidence of the house thing a go

I dont think the issue is using the waters for fishing etc (things that would be given to Canada since it would be part of our eez). I think it more about using it as a shipping lane. The yanks had sent submarines through the apssage without firste getting the consent of the Canadian govt... from wikipedia: "Territorial waters: Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate any use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters." from this passage I wonder if it is legal then to go through the passage?? Hopefully someone who as some knowledge of the law of the sea can give an asnwer. Either way I dont think the American govt has ratified the agreement, so i doubt theyll follow it anyways

Bush will be gone in two or so years and everyone knows that. How many countries know for certain that government power will pass peacefully to someone else except by death? The Russians have only done it once. The Cubans seem incapable of it.The test of civilized society is whether government power passes peacefully, from one living soul to another. In this regard, the Americans are remarkable in the modern world. They've achieved it using more or less the same rules about 35 times. That's a phenomenal tradition imitated nowhere else. Since beheading a king, the French have had five constititutions and a dictatorship or two. BTW, the US Supreme Court struck down the Patriot Act. Who cares. The Security Council (and UN) are irrelevant now. At this point, Bush Jnr (and Harper) patronized the UN and I'm surprised that no one noticed.Name Zimbabwe, North Korea, Zaire and Iran to the Security Council. Make them permanent members. Who cares. The Cold War is over and the UN is as useful now as the League of Nations in 1940 or - using my father's expression - it's as useful as a witch's tit. Ill argue that the UN still has many uses....ignoring the GA and SC for a moent there are many other organizations affiliated with the United Nations doing a lot of work that shouldnt be dismissed As far as the SC goes....if its so irrelevant than why do nations go to such great lengths to have it justify their military actions. Bush and Blair both spent enormous time at the SC trying to get it to give them chapter 7 authorization against Iraq (which they argue they have.....thats another debatable topic). If it is so irrelevant than why bother? I think the fact that those two nations, especially the US, are on the hook for all the costs associated with the war shows how important SC authorization is. You can bet if it had been clearly authroized by the SC many other nations would be contributing to the war (dont forget the Canadian govts one reason for not being involved was that it was not authorized by the SC). To that end the SC is very relevant... And even the US loves the SC at times. It enabled them to pick and choose which conflicts they wanted to get involved in during the 90's. By using the SC to determine humanitarian conflicts as threats to international peace for reasons such as causing refugee problems, they could intevene without starting a precedent that would force them into helping out during all humanitarian conflicts without coming across as self-interest motivated jerks. Just because the Cold War has ended does not make the UN useless...in fact it was the end of the Cold War that enabled the SC to finally start to begin to extend its reach and do something. If Saddam had moved against Kuwait say 5 years earlier we may never have seen chapter 7 resolutions passed against him and things may have played out a lot differently. Any permanent member on the SC has great interest in seeing the UN continue under its current form (and that includes the United States). They have the ability to use the UN for its purposes and can safeguard against any action taken against them with the veto....whats not to like about that.

Bush will be gone in two or so years and everyone knows that. How many countries know for certain that government power will pass peacefully to someone else except by death? The Russians have only done it once. The Cubans seem incapable of it.The test of civilized society is whether government power passes peacefully, from one living soul to another. In this regard, the Americans are remarkable in the modern world. They've achieved it using more or less the same rules about 35 times. That's a phenomenal tradition imitated nowhere else. Since beheading a king, the French have had five constititutions and a dictatorship or two. BTW, the US Supreme Court struck down the Patriot Act. Who cares. The Security Council (and UN) are irrelevant now. At this point, Bush Jnr (and Harper) patronized the UN and I'm surprised that no one noticed.Name Zimbabwe, North Korea, Zaire and Iran to the Security Council. Make them permanent members. Who cares. The Cold War is over and the UN is as useful now as the League of Nations in 1940 or - using my father's expression - it's as useful as a witch's tit. Ill argue that the UN still has many uses....ignoring the GA and SC for a moent there are many other organizations affiliated with the United Nations doing a lot of work that shouldnt be dismissed As far as the SC goes....if its so irrelevant than why do nations go to such great lengths to have it justify their military actions. Bush and Blair both spent enormous time at the SC trying to get it to give them chapter 7 authorization against Iraq (which they argue they have.....thats another debatable topic). If it is so irrelevant than why bother? I think the fact that those two nations, especially the US, are on the hook for all the costs associated with the war shows how important SC authorization is. You can bet if it had been clearly authroized by the SC many other nations would be contributing to the war (dont forget the Canadian govts one reason for not being involved was that it was not authorized by the SC). To that end the SC is very relevant... And even the US loves the SC at times. It enabled them to pick and choose which conflicts they wanted to get involved in during the 90's. By using the SC to determine humanitarian conflicts as threats to international peace for reasons such as causing refugee problems, they could intevene without starting a precedent that would force them into helping out during all humanitarian conflicts without coming across as self-interest motivated jerks. Just because the Cold War has ended does not make the UN useless...in fact it was the end of the Cold War that enabled the SC to finally start to begin to extend its reach and do something. If Saddam had moved against Kuwait say 5 years earlier we may never have seen chapter 7 resolutions passed against him and things may have played out a lot differently. Any permanent member on the SC has great interest in seeing the UN continue under its current form (and that includes the United States). They have the ability to use the UN for its purposes and can safeguard against any action taken against them with the veto....whats not to like about that.

There's a lot of people on this board who can't admit that. Look at the endless attacks by certain posters.... Fears of the social conservative agenda will recede after time. Originally the charge was that *any* Conservative government would push the social agenda. Now that we've been in government and haven't pushed the agenda. *Scary* *scary* *scary* has less resonance as time goes on. the only thing that will recede true small l liberals fears is a conservative majority government that doesnt push their social agenda and try to put us on par with some other backwards nations

Which interests? world domination???

Im starting to think he actually wants the American government to overthrow him to prove some sort of point of their long and continued meddling in Latin American politics.... or he is just stupid

You're right and that's one of the causes of the problem. UN pretty much ran its course as the pocket vehicle of the West to legitimize its projects in the world. And the West is highly unlikely to agree to any kind of reform that'll make it appear more democratic (and diminish its powers). So, a stalemate? Will it eventually end up as just a talking club (i.e. -SC) plus cultural, humanitarian and medical organizations? "Will it eventually end up as just a talking club (i.e. -SC)" confusing comment.....security council is the only organ of the UN that has any power....everything else is already just a talking club (which isnt a bad thing-- where we would have been without talking clubs during the cold war is anyones guess)

Nothing unexpected, he mostly followed the administration line as expected. I was fairly impressed with him though. He came across as quite intelligent, especially for a republican . Declined to get overly involved with questions that he felt regarded internal Canadian matters. Really understands his role as an ambassdor and sticks to matters that involve relations between Canada and the US. All in all, a much better diplomat than Celucci. -Softwood Lumber: Was asked how the adminstration could justify not returning all collected tariffs seeing that the vast majority of rulings had gone in Canadas favour and responded with "because it was a negoiated settlement". Went on about how negotaited settlement was only way to ever resolve the situation. There was definte pride that he had been a part of ending this long dispute....did mention that when he first arrived in Ottawa he was specifically told by memebrs of american consulate that softwood lumber dispute would not be resolved while he was still ambassador, highlighting the belief that it was an unresolvable dispute. -Was asked to comment on why he chose to become ambassador to Canada since it was acknowledged he had little knowledge of the country. Said he wanted to work not "sit on a beach somewhere" and that this posting would allow him the chance to really do something due to our large trading relationship etc. He seemed quite knowledgable about Canada, talked about how he had studied up a lot, mentioned his travels throughout the country. -Arctic Sovereignty: kept with adminstrations view that Northwest Passage is international waters under Law of the Sea....made a point of mentioning that the EU holds the same view. -was asked whether relations had improved/things were easier due to the change in government. Did a good job skirting the question a little. It is obvious relations are much better and he said he would let people come up with their own reasons as to why. Mentioned that there was less of a blame game now then there had been in the past few years (finger pointing from both sides). Mentioned that there was more discussion/meetings between counterparts/more travel etc. -was asked whether he found Laytons comments regarding negoiating with Taliban to be offensive, responded by saying he respects Laytons right to have an opinion on the matter but disagrees...direct quote "you cant negoiate with terrorists"...somewhat interesting since Taliban werent necessarily terrorists but harboured them....depending on how you define terrorism I guess -declined to comment on Arar inquiry.....said that it was investigation into Canadian officials role in it and had nothing to do with Americas role and therefore he had nothign to say -on the environment he wasnt clearly not pleased with how the question was worded....almost accusing adminstration of just not giving a damn....argued that they had reduced emissions, were on the way to hitting the goals they had set, said this was proof of the administrations grave concern for climate change -Wasnt very satisfied with his comments regarding Iraq war and the clear lack of connection of Iraq and any terrorist connections/activity prior to the invasion. He linked Iraq war to the War on Terror even though, in my opinion, those two conflicts must be seen as seperate conflicts. He argued Iraq war was an important part of the War on Terror.....mentioned humanitarian benefits of toppling Hussein (didnt hear any of that in the pre-war buildup). Didnt really comment on any lack of terrorist connection or threat from Iraq....went straight to humanitarian benefits of ousting Hussein...not much of a big deal since its not really an issue pertaining to his job -said that economic losses due to travel/trade because of any new security measures were of great concern. The issue was still being worked out and was confident that in the end it wouldnt effect economy negatively.

most people are able to admit that the conservatives are doing a decent job but there will always be fears of the social conservative agenda coming out in a majority government.

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are good examples of why the UN will never be trusted with power that isn't tempered by the vetoes of "sane" countries. The majority of the members of the United Nations are petty dictators, crooks, murderers, and fruit-loops like Chavez. People in countries like Canada, Finland, or Australia will never trust themselves to a one-man, one-vote general assembly which is made up mostly of petty tyrants and crooks. Especially when a big chunk of what's left, ie, most African nations, etc., sell their votes on anything which doesn't concern them. Chavez and Ahmadinejad, and people like them, are what's wrong with the UN. How many kooks and butchers without the slightest real legitimacy as legitimate representatives of their people have stood on that podium thumping their fists and shouting out their rants to the world? And you seriously think we're going to remove the veto right of the western powers? What do you think the assembly would have done over the past thirty years with unfettered power? I wouldn't want to know. If there was a United Nations without vetos by the West I wouldn't want us to be members. to be fair to chavez he is a legitmate ruler.....won his first election with 56% of the vote (election was validated by the Carter Center), won reelection handidly but there was some allegations of hanky-panky leaving the Carter Center to not validate the results, however they did certify that the election of Chavez followed "the will of the people"....he also survived the recall referendum in 2004. In all likelihood he enjoys MUCH more support than Bush or Harper do. He may be a horrible leader with no understanding of economics, but he is legitimate. "What do you think the assembly would have done over the past thirty years with unfettered power?" -General Assembly has no power, read the UN Charter....all power is and will continue to be vested in the security council "Especially when a big chunk of what's left, ie, most African nations, etc., sell their votes on anything which doesn't concern them." -examples? To make the UN more successful two things need to happen: -SC reform -UN permanent force 1. SC reform -as it stands the SC has questionable legitimacy. Vetoes allow for selective action and exposes the council to bias (ie. israel). Inconsistancy exposes other motives then what the UN is there for, "the maintenance of international peace and security", and renders the SC illegitmate. Its amazing how countries that cry about the undemocratic nature of other countries are fine with an undemocratic international body calling the shots. -permanent member vetoes is what will stop the SC from reaching its full potential -reform of the security council to make it more democratic is not going to give "unfettered power" to "petty tyrants and crooks" since to pass a resolution it would still need some sort of majority support, in my opinion 10 votes or 67%, assuming it remains 15 seats (any reformed SC would realistically still include permanent members who would lack vetoes). I see the council as having a set amount of seats for regions of the world which would likely eliminate any of your worries of crazy dictators running the show. Either way a prerequisite of being on the council should be having a leader who represents "the will of his/her people", which doesnt necessarily require democracy. -along with, or included with, SC reform is the need to set limits on the councils power by coming to an agreement on what actually constitutes a "threat to international peace and security". Leeaving the security council with absolute power to define what a "threat" is will allow the council to extend its reach as far as it wishes. The potential reach of the security council (even with vetoes) was illustrated after the end of the cold war, specifically regarding Somalia and Haiti. In addition, allowing for some sort of judicial review of SC resolutions would give another check to power and is an option that should be debated. It would be rather easy for the ICJ to take over this role. 2. UN Permanent force -if people are serious about having a "useful" UN that fully realizes the charter goals then a permanent force under UN Command would be necessary. It would not only address failures of the UN to respond to crisis but could act as a deterrant, with countries knowing an army will be there (not an army being there dependant on whether or not member states will send them)

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV? Because criminalizing something when there is no victim involved goes against the very conservative principle that government should not get involved in our personal lives? If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you ... If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be? We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone. Using the principle of harm to decide how much freedom we give to individuals in society is really the only way we can measure crime. If something doesnt harm someone it is not a crime. Doing it any other way is just picking someones values and saying that they are inherently better (works great if your values are picked....but what if they are not?) "What's wrong is wrong": it is clearly not that simple. What is wrong to you is not going to be wrong to everyone else. We use the harm principle to get around this problem by allowing people to decide for themselves what is wrong and right as long as they are not harming another individual or society. Why is using this principle the only way to go? -no other alternative: any other alternative is choosing one group or persons value over another, which is clearly not acceptable -prudence: it is simply the safest way to do things. Sure it might be great if what is a crime is being defined by your values but how can you guarantee it will always be that way? Because it is unlikely or uncertain that your values will always define what a crime is then it is only prudent to use the harm principle as a way of securing your own freedom (one day something you do that you consider to be alright could be defined a crime) -acceptability: something considered prudent is usually acceptable to everyone.... making the harm principle generally acceptable to everyone since it grants equality to everyones values (with the only exception being that your values may not harm another/society as a whole). "If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you" -throw out eventually is the key here....you still loose the value you would gain from your property (even if it was only going to be in your possession for another 10 minutes)........if it is beside the garbage can on the street and someone jacks it Id say thats not a crime "If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be?" -well to simply answer this its the same as above. The prisoner is denying that man 5 minutes of life (not much but still harm). However, I would go on to argue that the state has no right to take the mans life either (but thats a different debate for another thread)

Although Ignatieff supported the invasion of Iraq it was for very different reasons than Bush. He was personally appalled by the suffering of the Kurds and saw ousting Hussein as absolutly necessary to liberate ethnic groups in iraq. I believe Ignatieff has publicly stated that he disagrees with the way in which the war was carried out by the Bush administration. The more he would be able to get this across to voters the more dangerous he becomes to Harper since Ignatieff would be able to appeal to the right on foreign policy while still being able to capture the left (especially with his domestic policies).

The International Relations Students Association (IRSA) along with the Liu Institute for Global Issues will be hosting David Wilkins, the US ambassador to Canada for an intimate Q&A at UBC tommorow (wednesday 20th). Ill be attending if anyone has any questions they would like to have asked just post them (sorry its kind of short notice)

well it had been a good 15 years since they had a military coup so democracy (if you can really call Thailand one using the full definition of democracy) had been in place for awhile... I think it will be interesting to see if the final result will be the strengthening of democracy here or a return to the old ways...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...-emergency.html interesting devlopment... military claims that it is only temporary and that the government will be returned to the people soon...

they need marriage for the same reason everyone else wants to be "married". Most people in society grow up conditioned to believe that getting married/having family is the way to do it and gay people are no different. I dont think it had anything to do with "kicking religion in the pants". When and why did religion get a monopoly on the word "marriage"??

<heh> I cross back and forth. I am pretty conservative fiscally but fairly liberal socially. Social issues are ones where I'm fairly far to the left. I'm in favor of a woman's right to abortion in first three months of pregnancy. I would be more in favor of SSM (I'm against it now) if some of the issues as same sex divorces, rights of creditors, impact on insurance rates and on rent control systems were considered. Those positions put me well to Chow and Layton's positions. <heh> I cross back and forth. I am pretty conservative fiscally but fairly liberal socially. Social issues are ones where I'm fairly far to the left. I'm in favor of a woman's right to abortion in first three months of pregnancy. I would be more in favor of SSM (I'm against it now) if some of the issues as same sex divorces, rights of creditors, impact on insurance rates and on rent control systems were considered. Those positions put me well to Chow and Layton's positions. your position on SSM kind of does in your argument that your a liberal socially.. "there is little policy reason to give gay couples the same financial and other advantages that come from marriage." -having a free and equitable society should be policy reason enough. one thing I can never understand about conservatives is their blatant self-interest-- freedoms for people like me only attitude. "Liberals also will not tell you what happens when gay couples can file joint returns, and where the government revenues will come from to make up the shortfalls that will arise from the increased number of joint returns." -conservatives never tell us how they can morally justify the unequal treatment of citizens of a country. if the money isnt there then reduce the financial benefits across the board....my guess is the shortfall isnt all that big -is the world a safer place without Saddam? One could argue since he posed little to no threat to the security of any state the world isnt much safer, especially with the instability that now exists in Iraq. The people of Iraq may, I stress may, have gained safety in the long run. Too soon to tell what Iraq will look like in the future. One thing is for sure.....they are a lot less safe now than they were before the american-british invasion. Although some personal freedoms may have been gained....personal security has taken a massive hit. -why the hatred of the UN? The ineffectual nature of the UN has nothing to do with it as an institution and everything to do with its members. The UN doesnt work when member nations dont want it to work.....it works when they do want it to work. -as far as oil-for-food example: I dont think it is fair to highlight one example of failure in fifty plus years of existence and argue the organization is no good. All the other major failures of the UN are due to the lack of will from member nation governments. -many people argue that the lack of legitmacy of the Iraq war (by not having been granted by a security council authorization) has led the US to shoulder all the post-invasion costs. no other nation has any obligation to shoulder any costs in a war that lacked international legitmacy. Both Bush and Blairs governments realized this and that is why they went to such lengths to get authorization. In the end they didnt get it because the SC (mostly france and russia with veto power) determined that there was no basis for invasion (which, especially after not finding weapons, was the right call)