bradco

When the signs on the highway, when coming in from any Canadian airport to a major city such as Montreal, Toronto or Calgary direct me to "Centreville" rather than to "Center City" I do not consider that English. On the same roads, I do not consider "Nord", "Est", "Ouest" or "Sud" to be English. Your comment I was referring to had nothing to do with french, rather you said, "In Calgary, the people, similarly, insisted on speaking Canadian even though they clearly understood English." Canadian is arguably closer to English than American is. You need to realize that English is a language from England not from America. We all speak variants of English which is a language from England. They are all pretty much the same though. As far as french signs go.... We have two official languages in our country, if you dont like that stay away I guess. I live in Vancouver and there is almost no french outside of the airport because almost nobody here speaks it (probably 5% could).

Im glad people who are in charge are not so quick to go to war as you. Are you completely oblivious to the fact he has a nuclear weapon now. Although he isnt capable of firing it off anywhere Seoul would be gone if world leaders followed your advice to go straight to the barracks. For the sake of the millions of peopleliving in Seoul Im glad your not in charge Blame its members for that. When they cooperate and wish for the UN to be effective it is. What the UN always needed was a permanent army. Unfortunatly no states were willing to provide for it. Its ability to police the world is therefore dependant on the willingness of states to provide resources. Any failure to rpevent a world war will be a result of this unwillingness. I would argue it is much morelikely that a world war would result without the UN. You take out the one place where all antions can get together and talk about their differences instead of settling them on the battlefield. Your blatant bias is evident here as you dont mention the US. The US is second all time in vetoing resolutions well ahead of the rest of the pack including France, UK and China. Although I agree with you that they ought to all be democracies that is against the purpose of the UN. The UN is supposed to be inclusive of all nations, not just ones that the West likes. That is, the UN is an international organization not an exclusively western one. Dont confuse NATO and the UN. Now if the people in these non democratic countries were to rise up and demand democracy Id say the UN should support them. Probably couldnt happen because China would veto. Maybe we should do away with the vetos then. BUt would the US, UK, France or Russia be ok with that? No. Any faults of the UN lie equally with all of the permanent members of the security council.

Winter boots and education are not exactly the same thing. Canadian society believes that education is fundamentally important and therefore it is necessary for it to be publicly funded so everyone can go. We also force everyone to go up to a certain point because society doesnt want a bunch of morons walking around. Dont like this then your always free to move or try to lobby against societal beliefs about education

Any honest reading of paragraphs 12 and 14 of resolution 1441 will lead you to believe a second resolution was needed. Even the US and UK ambassordors agreed. Im not arguing against your legal interpretation of how force is authorized...it just needed a second resolution to confirm the authorization and 1441 says so. The authorization only comes into effect after another resolution is passed. Paragraps 12 and 14 and the admitting to such a fact by both the US and UK ambassodors. Paragraph 12 and 14 put this forth. The verbal contract entered by the ambassodors confirms the meaning of these paragraphs. You cant ignore the fact that this was done on the enveiling of the resolution. Although not written in the resolution it is a recognition of the meaning of paragraphs 12 and 14 wich are in the resolution. Assuming you have then read the resolution did you just skip paragraphs 12 and 14 because 4-11 had you going. Probably should go back and finish reading it. Arguing inside the SC chambers that actions were illegal is pretty damn official. You completely ignore that the vast majority of states and their leaders, including SC members, considered it illegal and made it known officially that they did so. The tabling of a resolution that would not pass is irrevlevant. What matters is that they make it publicly known what their opinions are. Good work cherry picking the crappy links and completely ignoring ones such as: Michael Byers http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html : Michael Bothe, chairman of the German Society for International Law. Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa's Constitutional Court, who was the lead prosecutor in U.N. tribunals on the Rwanda genocide and killings in the former Yugoslavia, said the United States risked undermining international law But Laetia Husson, a researcher at the International Law Center at the Sorbonne university in Paris, said international action to declare a breach of the U.N. Charter was unlikely. "There is little chance of condemnation by the United Nations because they will be paralyzed by the U.S. veto in the Security Council," she said. Richard Norton-Taylor, "Law Unto Themselves, The Guardian, March 14, 2003 ("A large majority of international lawyers reject the government's claim that UN resolution 1441 gives legal authority for an attack on Iraq.") "Resolution 1441, by which Tony Blair and Jack Straw have laid so much store, simply reminds Saddam Hussein of the "serious consequences" of a failure to disarm referred to in earlier UN resolutions. The phrase falls far short of an instruction to UN member states to use "all necessary means" - the traditional UN euphemism for armed force." Alan Elsner, "US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal," Reuters, March 6, 2003 ("Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law."). http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/...7749770379.html : "Although, in standard Security Council style, all previous resolutions on Iraq are referred to in the preamble of resolution 1441, there is no paragraph that suggests UN member states may take "all necessary means" to implement the resolution. Indeed, France, China and Russia made a public interpretative statement on resolution 1441 on the day it was adopted, noting they could vote for the resolution precisely because it contained no "automaticity" in the use of force. This understanding was confirmed in the United States's and Britain's formal explanation of their votes." again the point is that anything 1441 authorizes is dependant on the second resolution. Again I will point out, even the US and UK ambassodors agreed to this. Yet even though the interveners ageed to this you continue to argue its not so.

I agree. As the civilized world though I argue we ought to set the example. Just because others dont follow it is not a good enough reason for us to not follow it. As I explained our following international law does not have a negative effect on our security so its not like we are put at a disadvantage. Most people in the civlized world dont want to see their countries involved in wars of conquest because we have seen the pain and suffering that they involve and are tired of going down that road. Wars of conquest are the only wars international law stops us from doing.

You make it sound like my goal is to screw over western countries. Ideally I would like everyone to follow international law. Trying to put contraints on war (different then trying to end war) seems like a pretty good idea to me considering the suffering it imposes. I see the development of international law the same as domestic law. Any rational person argues domestic law is totally necessary to protect people. It works better then international law obviously but it still has its faults. When domestic law doesnt work though I never hear people talk about doing away with or not following it. They focus on changing laws. You can change international law through treaties, state practise, and opinio juris. International law has changed and adapted to deal with many new circumstances (ie the expanding reach of the security council throughout the 90's). This continual adapting will be necessary to deal with the problems of "asymetrical" wars that you mentioned. Just because others may not follow it to the letter doesnt mean we should abonden it. Lots of people dont follow the law domestically but us law abiding citizens never suggest we should do away with law because of this. The rule of law beats anarchy anyday in my books. If we are truly in a war agsinst rogue nations and terrorists to protect our way of life it is entirely necessary to follow international law and norms. The rule of law is an essential part of western society and to not extend that to our international relations is a victory for the terrorists in my opinion. Member states have an "inherent" right to defend themselves against any armed attack so I dont see how they are rendered helpless (article 51 of UN Charter). Western countries may be restrained from starting wars but in no way are they restrained from defending themselves (except in regards to preempitive self defense). However, the ability for the SC to declare pretty much anything a "threat to international peace and sucurity" and therefore legitmize a war provides for preemption anyways. With no enforcement possibilities though if there is an overriding concern a state will always act and never be punished. Ie Israel, America etc 1980-88 Iran v Iraq: On 9 December 1991, the UN Secretary-General reported the following to the UN Security Council: "That Iraq's explanations do not appear sufficient or acceptable to the international community is a fact. Accordingly, the outstanding event under the violations referred to is the attack of 22 September 1980, against Iran, which cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for conflict." "Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran—which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict—in violation of the prohibition of the use of force, which is regarded as one of the rules of jus cogens." "On one occasion I had to note with deep regret the experts' conclusion that "chemical weapons had been used against Iranian civilians in an area adjacent to an urban centre lacking any protection against that kind of attack" (s/20134, annex). The Council expressed its dismay on the matter and its condemnation in resolution 620 (1988), adopted on 26 August 1988."[62] 1973 Yom Kippur War: -invasion of Israel was blatantly illegal (violation of 2(4) UN Charter). Nobody even has to do anything or say anthing to make it illegal. Under article 51 Israel had the right of self defense so they werent handicapped in any way. -Im sure if one was to look at coments made by states at the time they probably regonozied the actions were illegal and that Israel had the right to self defense. -also confident that SC resolutions regarding the war would have recognized the violation of 2(4)

"And when did the UNSC say that they did not empower the US to invade Iraq? I think these people ought to be taking their bitch up with the council as they were the ones who gave the order and authorized the action." Upon its adoption all members said that the resolution did not empore the US to invade Iraq (it didnt allow for "automaticty"). I dont have a link for this. It was told to me by Professor Byers of UBC. If you dont trust this source you can probably find video fottage somewhere. It was when the resolution was first revealed to the public inside the SC chambers. These people were taking their bitch up with the council. Not really to just bitch. They knew that there was no way to punish anyone or anything like that. It was to have on record that intervention was considered illegal as to not set a precedent for allowing for interpretation of ambiguous resolutions to allow for intervention. "Make it official rather than heresay. Make a resolution." You know this is impossible. The US and the UK wasnt going to allow it to pass. "Never stopped them before so what makes this case so special. You cited fear of the US but we all know that is unfounded as you gave France as your example and I shot that one out of the water with a link." Do you honestly believe the US wouldnt veto a resultion declaring the Iraq War illegal. Be honest. "Nope. It is a court as it decides what to do about problems and it did decide that member states were autorhized to do whatever was need. If you have a problem with legality then you should be taking it up with them as they were the ones who gave the go ahead as a body." Even though they said upon adoption of the resolution that it did not. If they really meant for it to give the legal go ahead for war why was it so damn ambigous? Hey maybe because it wasnt meant to be used for intervention without another resolution. Read the resolutions that authourize intervention that arent contentious. They are all very direct and unambigous. Ie. the resolution on Darfur authourizing intervention (all SC resolutions are on UN site if you want them). "It's the only body that can say that's not what it meant when it gave the authorization. Any other body is only mindreading if it attempts to try it." Classic. You totally ignore the fact that your misreading the resolution to legalize the war. The US and UK legal argument is based on loopholes and ambiguity. The [/i]will of the SC was to have another resolution. Thats clear when they said it did not allow for "automaticity". Thats also clear from what veto holding members such as France and Russia argued (this is common knowledge I shouldnt have to go around finding news articles to tell you they didnt want intervention.....im assuming you dont live in a box) but as you wish you can check: France Vows to Block Resolutions On Iraq War, Jan 29 2003 Washington post (sorry no link, only have quote from it in an article), France and Russia Ready to Use Veto Against Iraq War, NY Times March 6, 2003 "Nope. It is a court as it decides what to do about problems and it did decide that member states were autorhized to do whatever was need. If you have a problem with legality then you should be taking it up with them as they were the ones who gave the go ahead as a body. Here's a link as you as per usual have none." Thanks for the link that says nothing about the SC being a judge in determining when international law was broken. 1441 was broken because it said, when read with any sort of faith, that another resolution would be needed. Then the ambassodors publicly agreed another resolution was needed. Then the UK went back looking for another resolution because they obviously thought it was needed. "And hundreds of better qualified ones supporting it. I beg you to name yours and supply a link to them. The ones who have been put forth to me paled in comparrison to the ones the goverments used. In anticipated absense of a link from you I will supply you with some." More qualified? You know the qualifications of every international lawyer. Thats a pretty bold statement. "William H. Taft IV" employed by US Government, or at least a history with them, no? I want to say he had a hand in crafting the original resolutions but I could be wrong. "Security Council Resolution 1483 on the Rebuilding of Iraq" Resolution 1483 made no pronoucement on the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom- International Law and the Use of Force, Christine Gray, Oxford University Press Some lawyers opposed: Michael Byers: dont have link to anything he published on Iraq war legal issue. Told me in person his opinion. Fairly qualified. http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/about/index.cfm?fus...amp;peopleID=24 Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University (stumbled across this interesting artcile: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html) Heres a link with boat loads of lawyers who argue it was illegal: http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm from that link you really ought to read this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,916184,00.html I like this: "Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law." I recognize that their are equal legal opinions on both sides. You go to name calling of highly trained and skilled international lawyers. I recognize that you want resolution 1441 to give final authorization of force. But any honest reading of it will tell you it doesnt, that another resolution is needed. I recognize that Saddam was a bad man and he needed to get booted. The end result was good. But that doesnt mean it was legal. Most countries agree it was illegal. Nobody is going to care that it wasnt legal though because in the end a terrible dictator is gone and international law is still here.

Saddam was funding terror; Saddam was suppressing the Shi'ite and Kurd minorities; The invasion breaks up the geographical contiguity of the "ummah" (a desireable objective in itself); While democratization has not gone perfectly it's now in the Muslim vocabulary and debate stream; I suspect things are going a lot better than MSM portrays. A village developing a civic culture is not news; a roadside bomb is; and Most importantly, the West cannot allow the "mouse to roar" with impunity. Some good points in 1 (as long as you mean funded the terror he subjected his population too...I dont think he funded any terror outside Iraq, at least I havnt seen any proof) , 2, 3(if that really has an effect on terrorism) and 4 (to the extent 4 has an effect on terrorism, Krusty Kid gives an interesting and probably correct reasoning to as why in his previous post). I guess I just dont particularly like a broad based war on anything that causes terror. Thats a lot of things. Biggest problem for me is that combining the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan into the same war is incredibly misleading. Ive seen a few polls that a large amount of Americans believe that Saddam had funded Al Qaida, which as far as Ive seen has never been proved and is likely false. I think that this is caused by the Bush Administration lumping these conflicts into the same "war". These two conflicts were fought entirely different, done for different reasons and justified with different reasons and legal arguments. Therefore they should be seen as different wars. Afghanistan was a war of self defense. Iraq was, well to be honest Im not really sure what Iraq was about. I guess preemptive self defense against a threat that was later shown to be non-existant. Unfortunatly, any terror by Saddam on his population was never used as the main reason for going to war. Since terror was not used as the reason to going to war I question Iraq being included in some broader war on terror. I would have loved a legal argument of a right to humanitarian intervention (to stop Saddams terror) to have been advanced. But it wasnt.

Detroit has slipped, but it seems I say that every year.... San Jose looks good. My canucks get to tangle with them tommorow night, should be good game. San Jose is good hey. Very promising. Calgary plays the Leafs tomorrow, now that should settle the differences between me and the rest of the posters here when Calgary wins it. damn Sharks got us bad tonight 6-4. Didnt have Salo on the blueline (day-to-day with groin), Bourdon got burned a couple of times (only his 2nd game in nhl) and Luongo cant seem to stop breakaways at all. Scariest part about their six goals though....Thornton and Cheechoo were held off the scoring sheet.

Bradco, you didn't realize I was joking a bit? No I figured as much. Just having a litt fun myself with your use of "English" instead of "American". You kid about Canadians not speaking English I kid about Americans not speaking English.

"No, I will simply say that there has been no crime commited as the body who can make the ruling allowing for action has not protested the action as not being what they meant in their last resolution, much less declared it anything out of the ordinary" What about the members of that council who have declared the actions in Iraq illegal? Russia said,"Nothing can justify this military action" (International Law and the Use of Force: Foundations of Public International Law, Christine Gray, Oxford University Press, page 278). At debates at the SC after the war, states "repeated their accusations of illegality" (same source, page 278: refers to SC meetings 4761, 4791) Additionally,"The Non-Aligned Movement of 116 states, the League of Arab States and several other states wrote to the SC to put on record their view that the coalition was guilty of aggression in violation of the UN Charter" (278)... If you dont think the opinion of states matters in deciding the legality of issues you have no understanding of international law. It is one of two main sources of international law, its known as customary law. Dont want to take my word for it? Check War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict by Michael Byers (pages 1-2, hey right at the beginning of the book...because its so basic) So yes members of the body who can make a ruling have voiced an opinion but the accused parties conviently have a veto. Additionally, the vast majority of states have deemed the intervention as illegal. You continue to stand by and argue that nothing is illegal unless the SC says so. Please refer me to somewhere in the UN Charter that says ONLY the SC can judge an act illegal. It is the only body who can authorize force, but thats not the same thing. "in ordeer to make this actin illegal we have to move into the tin oil hat club with you" Are the hundreds of international lawyers who believe the same thing I do also wear tinfoil hats? Are the vast majority of state leaders wearing tinfoil hats? No, but because the parties who invaded and you say it was legal its all good. "A trick. Oh those clever people on the UNSC. What the dvil are you talking about here?" Okay maybe not a conscious attempt to be tricky. The result of their intense political negotiations, nonetheless, forced legal arguments to a stalemate. No court to brake the stalemate. You say SC has to which is convient since the accusedparties can make sure that cant happen. I say the fact that members of the SC and the vast majority of states did decalre it illegal is pretty good proof it was illegal. "So, unless you are saying the UNSC is a counterfit body incapable and courrupt and unfit to make rulings of any kind then, we would have to assume they were competent and, made the resolution in the best manner possible" Its impartial and dominated by powerful states but its the best we have and the best we will have. It makes pretty good resolutions and after 1441 their quality will be a lot better. "The lack of their protesting, ruling, condemnation would only leave one to conclude that they approve of the action the US took. " As above...members did protest and condemn but no ruling would ever be made cause of vetoes. It is common knowledge that members of the SC did not intend for 1441 to be used to justify intervention without an additional resolution. Heck even the US and UK admitted their was no "automaticity". The action is illegal, theres no conviction because theres no court. Plain and simple. "Simple. They never thought the US would actually act. " Your kidding right? George was going, I think everyone had that one figured out. "The first step in making the invasion illegal is for that body to condemn it. " But that body cant pass a resolution to condemn it. You know that. Members of it and other states, as I have said, did condemn the actions arguing they were illegal. But hey, you still cant even figure out the difference between illegal and convicted. "The USNC is a court Myata, the highest on the planet and, they don't believe the US acted illegaly. In short, nobody with authority has even said a crime has been commited. So, it is legal and, certainly not illegal." Really? Ive read the UN Charter and saw no mention of the SC as a court. I think that one was pulled out of your ass. More of an executive body, not a judicial one. Hey maybe the Canadian cabinet should be in control of the legality of things. Again though, members of your supposed court did believe the US acted illegal and said as much (see above). The vast majority of nations have argued (see above) that a crime was committed and they are in positions of authority as far as being the crafters of customary international law. Sorry for not feeling the need to get you a source before to prove that the vast majority of states condemned the actions as illegal. Figured it was common knowldedge to anyone who would profess to have knowledge of international law. "Is it a bad thing that the one that pays has more influence than freeloaders? Frankly, as a US taxpayer I deeply resent supporting this "organization". As a New York State taxpayer and driver I deeply resent the illegal parking with total impunity, their non-payment of tickets, maltreatment and stiffing of merchants and creditors and even occasional violence." Pays more so deserves more influence. I think thats reasonable. And they have their veto so they do have more influence. Pays more so doesnt have to follow the rules isnt a reasonable arguement. I would think that their would be a lot of cities around the world who would love the UN to be based their. I would imagine that there are a lot of economic benefits of having the UN from jobs to all the fancy dinners diplomats buy. As a taxpayer Id be more upset about the ridiculous money the US government spends on defense. Im not going to argue having an army is a bad thing, it is entirely necessary for security. But I think the US has far exceeded necessary expenditures on forces. Heck, maybe if they work a little harder at this UN thing they could reduce the size of that army without risking their security.

hahahaha - this post is complete joke. Canada as well as every other nation on earth would kill to be in our current position in every area you mentioned. Your obvious bias to see only the negative and disregrding ALL positives of the US’s current position makes your assesment a load of complete crap. Nobody is saying America isnt the most powerful. The argument is it may be in decline relative to other nations. Most people with the ability to use their brain can see this. Liam: Energy is a big threat to the US. However I think the amazing potential power of China is still the largest threat. They are growing three times as fast as the US and will have the ability to produce anything the US and the rest of the world can at a fraction of the cost. The ever more increasing industrialization of China, and others, works to compound the energy problem for the US. Im currently reading China Inc. by Ted Fishman (slowly since I have boat loads of reading and writing for school). Id recommend it, it really shows the transformation China has and is making and the ridiculous speed its doing so.

Higgly: Have you lived there? If so Id like to ask you how often french is used. If someone wanted to use it would most businesses/people be willing to do so? Im planning on moving to Ottawa in a few years for school in part because I want to be able to work on my french.

Do you understand now. People were dying before the war. Iraq is part of the war on terror. People tend to die in wars that's a fact. The thugs that are still causing problems are saddams's thugs. Proves we were right to go in there in the fisrt place. Now I know the Bush Administration calls the Iraq war a part of the war on terror. But is it? And why?

I mentioned in a related post the reaction of Bush critics to blame Bush for causing NK's thirst for nuclear weapons, by placing Kim Jong among the axis of evil, and here we have one such comment. Never mind that kimmie(with apologies to you know who, but he's so short and feminine!) has been thirsting for the Nuclear Whiskey since the early 90's, well before the axis of evil moniker. Using the 'name calling pushed him into it' logic, better get ready for WWIII. Recently Chavez gave a speech at the UN, where, no doubt to titters in the audience, he repeatedly called Bush THE DEVIL!! I'm sure Bush is readying his response, and all those who follow this logic will understand the tactical strikes that follow. Theres a difference between starting the program and actually devloping the bomb. He had to start the program to get respect and heard around the world. He needed some sort of bargaining chip with the west. Once he realized that the bargaining chip was only going to get him bombed he decides to go all the way so they cant bomb him. Why did NK get a nuclear weapon. Was it just another failure of the Bush admnistrations foreign policy? Or is it because there is some nutty little guy with hair too big for his body across the Pacific? My guess is the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Geroge would have you believe it was all that nutjob in North Korea who defies internaional consensus ('cause BUsh would never do that).

That is a horrible generalization. I am always respectful of my hosts. In Montreal (unlike quebec City) people made no effort to speak English even though clearly they could. Courtesy cuts both ways. "In Calgary, the people, similarly, insisted on speaking Canadian even though they clearly understood English." Why would you want them to speak English, I thought you were an American? I think English/Canadian/American are all close enough to be considered the same language and understood no matter which one is used.

Most people agree that the ability of weapons, such as chemical and biologica onesl, to cause thousands of deaths qualifies as mass destruction. Destruction isnt limited to damage of buildings. You can destruct humans as well.

I know lots of people who go to church and believe in gay marriage. My dads girlfriend goes to some Catholic church that even allows gays in, do you think gays support gay marriage?

I just wonder how a legal interpretation of one single event makes someone anti-Israel. This is what Harper is implictly trying to state. And its wrong. I dont know Iggys policy towards the war as a whole. Did he consider Israels broader actions to be legal or illegal? Even if he considered them illegal its still a legal opinion and doesnt necessarily render him "anti-Israel". As long as he can put forth somewhat of a legitmate argument. I would like to pose a question to posters. Does anyone here actually believe Israel to be completely innocent and to have no blood on their hands? I will agree that they were attacked and had an inherent right to self defense. The vast majority of their actions were within the parameters of proportionality and necessity. There are maybe a few bombings where proportionality gets a little fuzzy. But some of their actions, while the legal question is fuzzy, were definetly morally questionable. The use of cluster bombs in urban areas is pretty low and ought to be made completely illegal. Im not trying to argue that Israel is more guilty or worse than Hezbollah or any other actors, as the rightists will undoubtatly say I am. All im saying is that they are not completely innocent and not all of their actions should be accepted because of the terrible things other actors do. Harper seems to give blanket support to Israel and I would like to see him reconfirm that international laws and norms are important. I would also like to see our PM take a leading role in banning the use of weapons like cluster bombs in urban areas.

It is made up. There is no confirmation those numbers and whatever the real numbers are, are caused mainly by the people we are fighting. Do you understand now. The argument is that the war provided for the conditions for the deaths. They are indirect casualties of US intervention. Do you understand now. Personally I dont think that these surverys are very accurate and I believe they have overestimated the total. I just dont think the way they conducted the poll works. Its too small given the size of the country, questions of accuracy of respondents, death tolls vary across the country etc. It is clear though that a lot of people have been killed and likely a lot more than the 30,000 odd deaths George will admit. (at least thats the last total I heard from him)

Yes but will the replacement act differently? When has their ever been a US president that championed multilateralism? Im not sure Bush outright lied on Iraq. Im sure he thought they'd find some WMD (ie chemical weaopons). It is fair to say, I think, that he greatly overplayed the WMD card.

Im known to say "eh" a bit....personally I like it, eh...Ill take eh over y'all any day but something tells me that only uneducated southerners talk like that.

Detroit has slipped, but it seems I say that every year.... San Jose looks good. My canucks get to tangle with them tommorow night, should be good game.

Im anti-republican.....but that doesnt mean I dislike all republicans yet alone all Americans. Most Americans I have met in my travels are really nice people. One general observation I have made is that they seem to be relatively ignorant about Canada. Im not going to say most Americans are....just the ones I have met, in my opinion, have lessknowledge of Canada than Canadians have of America. I attribute it, rightly or wrongly, to America's status as the lone superpower. When your country is so large and powerful who cares about those 20 or 30 people living in igloos to the south, wait north of you (just being sarcastic!).

I think Harper's comment is over the top. Anti-Israel? Any criticism of Israel's policies is anti-Israeli? Yup sure is, according to the right wingers. Its part of the your either with us or against us nonsense. I dont like to think of myself as anti/pro Israel or Palestine or Iran etc. If any country does something I think is wrong Ill call them on it. Blanket support for anyone is stupid. Saying that Ignatieff does not have the right to have a legal opinion on a subject without being branded anti-Israel is ridiculous. Its a dishonest comment. If Harper disagrees with Ignatieffs legal opinion come out and say that and have a honest debate on the issue. Im so tired of all the politicians in this country. I like Igantieff because I believe that he is willing to debate issues faithfully without getting to name calling. Academics are usually like that. And to clarify I disagree with Ignatieff on many things....I just respect his honesty in debating issues.