Bionic Antboy

Actually there are a number of different ways to look at proportional rep. Most naysayers point to Italy and Israel, which are messy, but there are tons of European countries that have working models, and New Zealand has an interesting model as well. There's no reason PR couldn't incorporate regional rep as well. Of course, everyone else would have do agree on it, because Quebec would HATE that.

All this talk of Western Alienation is driving me nuts! The rest of Canada doesn't have a problem with the West (er, Alberta), or a potenetial leader coming from the West. The reason they never win is that they are CONSISTENTLY socially far right. If the alienation you're so worried about is because of issues like gay marriage, abortion and going to war, the the "Best in the West" lucked out in getting the seats he did in Ontario, mainly because of the thievery of the federal Libs, not because of a positive message from Harper. Find someone with a clear voice, who isn't socially regressive, and he/she would have done WAY better than Harper did. For example, both Stronach and Clement had a better chance of getting more seats in Ontario. That's just my opinion. And I realize when I say West, I'm not speaking for all the West, because I have relatives Calgary, Winnipeg and Regina and good friends in BC and the kind of Western Separatist extremism I'm hearing here isn't what I'm getting from them. The stats bear it out too... Let's take a look at the popular vote, in BC and Alberta (since it's people on this board talking about "alienation") and their percieved issues with Ontario/Quebec... Popular Vote... British Columbia Party/2000/2004/Change Lib: 27.7%, 28.6%, up 0.9% Con: 56.7%, 36.2%, down 20.5% New Dem: 11.3%, 26.6%, up 15.3% Alberta Party/2000/2004/Change Lib: 20.9%, 22.0%, up 1.1% Con: 72.4%, 61.6%, down 10.8% New Dem: 5.4%, 9.5%, up 4.1% Ontario Party/2000/2004/Change Lib: 51.5%, 44.7%, down 6.8% Con: 38.0%, 31.5%, down 6.5% New Dem: 8.3%, 18.1%, up 9.8% Quebec Party/2000/2004/Change Lib: 44.2%, 37.9%, down 6.3% Con: 11.8%, 8.6%, down 3.2% New Dem: 1.8%, 4.6%, up 2.8% Bloc: 39.9%, 48.8%, up 8.9% The Libs were down everywhere except BC, and there they were up by less than 1%. The Cons were down across the board. The NDP was up everywhere, and the Bloc was up as well. If you really want to reform the national relationship between the different regions, it seems that some form of proportional representation would be the best way to go. Quebec has it's voice because of the Bloc. 11% of the popular vote, but 55 seats? That's WAY unbalanced. What if EVERY province had their own "Bloc", the nation would crumble, and the quality of life for EVERY region would suffer. If we complain about the power of a united Canada on the world stage, what about 10 smaller countries? It would be a mess. Forget the rhetoric of Harper, playing up the "alienation" theme. Anyone who feels "alienated" should be asking for, nay, demanding, we look at proportional representation, across the board. Maybe THEN there can be REAL, positive change in the structure of governing this vast nation.

I'd have to disagree about checks and balances, as the long term ramifications of voting with one's personal purchases isn't really strong enough. Whether it's a brand name like Nike, or a "value" line of clothing, they are everywhere. Consumers in large urban areas may be able to find "responsibly manufactured" clothing or goods, but it's hard to find everywhere. Heck, it's not even that easy to find in Toronto. On top of that, all-pervasive advertising promoting the "hippest new gear" or the best bang for your buck (or the more general "Keeping up with the Joneses" and a lack of consumer awareness (or interest) makes the "vote with your money" argument weak. Similarly, ignoring the economic conditions of the people working in the sweatshops, saying that they don't have to work there, is to say that they could easily find a job somewhere else. Sweatshops maintain their low employee pay through competition between nations that want one in their country. It's much more complex than that. To say things are "about as good as they can be" smacks of a defeatist attitude. Why would you be wary of legally binding methods to make the checks and balances more effective? Do you really think that corporations have people's best interests at heart?

Pardon me, I did misattribute caesar's words to you. My apologies. I now await your further comments on the points I raised regarding globalisation and UN sanctions on Iraq. Apology accepted. Now that the air is cleared, let's get down to business. When it comes to Iraq, the sanctions were clearly detrimental to the people, which doing little to harm the regime. I suggested that the UN DID try to move forward and find some other solution. A loosening of sanctions, where it was most directly causing suffering among the people, along with other diplomatic solutions would have, IMHO, been better than the hardline that the US and UK held against the rest of the UN in this respect. Any further analysis of the situation is all hindsight, because it didn't happen, and the hardline was part of the reason Iraq became so stubborn with weapons inspectors in the late 90's. As for globalization, I'm not an anti-globalization zealot. At the same time, I don't feel there's enough checks and balances in the current approach. Sure the standard of living may be rising in China, an MAYBE that will lead in the long term to a more moderate gov't, but there are plenty of sweatshops elsewhere in the region (and other parts of the world), where the effects of globalization are less than beneficial. Although the "anti-globalization movement" has been portrayed as crazed anarchists (and some are), there are a lot of legitimate concerns regarding the environment, workers rights, corporate accountability and a myriad of other issues. In short, the basic idea of globalization of trade and commerce is good, but there HAS to be a REAL level of accountability. Let's take sweatshops as just one example... Right now, there isn't enough accountability, otherwise countries REALLY concerned with the propagation of personal freedom, prosperity and self-determination throughout the world would actually DO something about them. Stop Nikes or Gap clothes from coming here until there IS reform (which may be too extreme), or impose some sort of penality that amounts to more than a slap on the wrist. All the while, making sure that it's not just seen as another "cost of doing business", but that it would help further the health and prosperity of those making the running shoes. These ARE complex economical issues, to be sure, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there is more to "globalization" than just free movement of commodities across the planet.

In your zeal to denegrate anyone and everyone who doesn't share your point of view, you CLEARLY opt to misquote and misrepresent what others say. Yes, you did. Your exact words were: "The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions)" You did not say "thanks largely to US sanctions", "thanks in part to US sanctions", "thanks, amongst other things, to US sanctions". You said "thanks to US sanctions." You should watch what you say more closely. Somebody may hold you to it. (snipped) I notice you didn't try to pursue your ridiculous point about the "happiness" of the Cuban people. Good idea, you might look like a fool. Before misquoting me, you SHOULD have read what I typed, it's up there, and you quoted it.... you can either re-read it, or in the interest of saving your scrolling finger I'll quote it again... My exact words were... That's it... Similarly, I wasn't the one who wrote Would you like your humble pie served a la mode? Just as a little tip. When quoting multiple people in a reply, it may help you to make note of who said what, to avoid further embarrassing slip-ups

Extremely good point.More likely, US trade is to blame for poverty in the third world. (Those big US corporations come in and buy everything up paying dirt poor wages to the locals.) Could it be that we're getting a little closer to a real truth here? I'd agree with that statement, in that US foreign policy ISN'T primarily dictated by the need to spread democracy throughout the world. I'd say it's more driven by the wants and needs of corporations who only give a crap about human rights and dignity, the envionment and democracy when it's expedient to THEIR bottom line. (IE: when 60 Minutes airs a piece on sweatshops or some such thing). Note that this isn't to say that Canada, Britain, France and most other Western nations AREN'T hypocritical in their policies either.

For your information, Castro sent a communique to Nicaragua once warning them not to cut off trade links with the West as he had done. I also think that it's ridiculous when people such as yourself blame US sanctions for the plight of the Cuban people, and then lambast the US for trading with dictatorial regimes - which is it? Should they sanction, or not? Clearly, there is no right answer that the US can give you. US sanctions are to blame for the poverty of the Cubans and Iraqis, and US trade is to blame for propping up evil regimes in China and Saudi Arabia. Consider this massive inconsistency and hypocrisy for a second. Ahhh... over-generalizing again... In the same vein, I could point to the inconsistency and hypocrisy of sanctions BEING on Cuba, and not on Saudi Arabia, but I wouldn't want to over-generalize, as some like to do. Isn't it hypocritical to HAVE sanctions on Cuba, and none on Saudi Arabia or China? See what happens when you start to over-generalize? I never said that sanctions were the ONLY factor in Cuba's case, nor did I say that sanctions and other diplomatic means AREN'T valid tools when dealing with various governments. The policy itself strikes me as somewhat inconsistent, and lacks some ethically sound reasoning. When sanctions are proven to only harm the people of a country, and have little effect on the leaders of said country, there's something to be said for rethinking that policy, don't you think? As for putting words in my mouth re: China and Saudi Arabia, well, there's really not much more to say except you're putting words in my mouth, probably as a jumping off point to launch some kind of "God Bless Dick Cheney's America" tirade of some sort. Oops, now I'M making assumptions! 'Nuff said.

True, but to deny that sanctions have played a major role in the relative prosperity of the people is just a little disingeuous. As for the "tourist areas" comment, it's not hard, or illegal for a tourist to rent a car and strike out on the highway. In fact, I recommend it, if you want a truly surreal experience.

Who said I was talking only about the new movie? Moore has yet to publish a single novel or movie that isn't completely and intentionally deceptive. That makes him a liar and I can gaurantee you his new movie wont break the trend =p There are so many points to address in this.... First, the discussion IS on THIS movie. His other work is only good as a frame of reference. For that matter, his work has evolved to become less and less documentarian in nature, no doubt. This film, apparently, swings back in the other direction, according to reviews (both good and bad) I've read (although I've discounted the "reviews" by WSJ and Ben Shapiro, as they offered reviews on something they haven't even seen, hence they don't count). How do you propose to guarantee that F 9/11 is going to be like BFC (which, incidentally, wasn't like Roger & Me OR Canadian Bacon)? First off the abuse scandel was a terrible thing, does that mean Bush went over to Iraq and personally oked those prisoner's sexual harrassment? No, if you believe that then you are gullible. Sometimes people act out of turn, that was the case there. WMD is still an unsettled issue, thinking there was none is just ignorance, read up on some of the missile heads and so on they find over there.... what happened to the rest of them? Here you're putting words in my mouth. I clearly say the White House, not Bush. For the record, IMHO most of the policy has seemed driven more by Cheney and Rumsfeld, not Bush. They clearly have a long term, far right, almost fascistic (and not in a hyperbolic sense of the word) agenda that was clearly documented well before 9/11. Of course, maybe reading "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" before 9/11 made me suspicious of those two a LONG time ago. As for gullibility, maybe those who haven't read the entire text of the PNAC "bible" are the truly gullible ones, as are the media who don't bother discussing the agenda set forth by that far-right think tank that now occupies a large portion of the seats of power in the White House. www.newamericancentury.org As for WMD, we shall see what we shall see. So far it's not amounting to the stockpiles the US tried to sell to the UN in it's PowerPoint presentation. I doubt it will. You are right about the burden of proof, but the problem then arises when the defence uses that as a form of attack on the credibility of the prosecution. It is extremely near-sighted and unless you search every square inch of Iraq and still find no WMD you cannot claim you are right and Bush is wrong. Its word against word =p Its good you dont trust the press, but you seem to echo alot of the Liberal media that is why I assumed you did. The defense has every right to attack the credibility of the administration, because the administration pointed out specific locations that they said had WMD. Searches of those places have revealed nada (except barrels already known and tagged by the UN). The administration CLEARLY either lied, or exaggerated their case. As for my take on the whole "Liberal Media", that hasn't existed in the mainstream news media in well over a decade. Ever since the conglomeration of news media, it has become less than critical, and prefers to maintain the status-quo. Especially the news "networks", where, like it or not, the majority of people still get their news from (not saying the people here). I'll give you that the media is more "Liberal" when it comes to domestic social issues, but certainly not in international reporting. It's downright atrocious. So now you use the White House as your defence when just one minute ago you were trying to destroy their credibility? My my my You see the most common stereotyped terrorist as being the only form of terrorist to exist, that is incorrect. I showed you the literal definition of Terrorist and Saddam fits the bill thereby he IS a terrorist and I believe the USA is at war with them Yep, I'm using the White House. My point is from what I've noticed post 9/11 is that only pundits with a more rabidly pro-war "Hawk"ish attitude refer to Hussein himself as a terrorist. A terrorist being one that commits acts of terrorism, which I always took to mean... The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (from the American Heritage dictionary) or the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion Therefore, call Hussein a tryrant, sure, a torturer, no problem. But a terrorist? Nah... that puppy don't float. Let me clarify... When the State holds a gun to the citizen's head, it's called tyranny or oppression, NOT terrorism. Terrifying act, yes, but terrorism, no. Plain and simple. Ok how did he botch up efforst against bin Laden first of all? Also your basing your argument on your own personal assumption that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, therefore attempting to justify yourself with your own thinking and that doesn't work. I'm basing my opinion on the reports ignored before 9/11. I'm basing it on the agenda that has been clearly reported by many administration officials. I'm basing it on Condi Rice having the gall to say that a report entitled "bin Laden Determined to strike in the US" was a historical document, and hardly a peep out of the so-called leftist press. It was a blip. I'm basing it on the fact that under international law, it WAS the wrong (illegal) thing to do. I'm basing it on reports that when Bush took over, he threw out the Clinton administration's policy of treating terrorism as an international law enforcement issue. A policy which DID stop dozens of terrorist attacks - look up foiled plots against the following... Lincoln Bridge, UN Headquarters, FBI headquarters, 12 commercial jets simultaneously, the millennium bombings, Papal assassination and more, all in cooperation with international police forces, without the need to enact something like the Patriot Act, to boot. The Bush administration threw out that policy whole cloth, even though, in the final few years of Clinton's administration especially, it had proven highly effective. I was never a big fan of Clinton, but anti-terrorism policy worked. Of course, this meant that he was happy to keep Iraq contained, as Iraq was much less a threat (which lead to untold suffering and death in Iraq at the time). Then I agree with you, they should have cleaned up the mess long ago. But are we going to cry about spilled milk for all of eternity or are we gonna get down and clean it up? Exactly, but I don't think the way to clean it up was to use a metaphorical flamethrower. That's where we differ. You sound just like those Liberals who said 'its clear Germany does not have the power to defy Europe' oh my weren't they proven terribly wrong, the difference between you and me is that you would wait for some terrible tragedy to happen to you or your people before acting, whereas I would ensure there was no danger and therefore nothing would happen. When one has wanted change in the Iraq policy for many years, how is that like a Liberals who said 'its clear Germany does not have the power to defy Europe' . Isn't it the people who let the status-quo exist who have their heads in the sand? Specious argument to say the least! That also applies to your next paragraph, so I won't bother quoting it. If you do recall this war is still a legal war, Iraq was in violation of UN resolution and defiant to the end. There was a lack of cooperation to UN inspectors even, and so the USA, tired of waiting months for the UN to do nothing about these violations and fearing for the international security of the world made the decisive move for us. Try and convince the Iraqis that Saddam and his murderous reign were 'faked' =p The tyrannical rule of Hussein is not in question (another straw man?). What IS in question are the issues previously raised re: WMD and links to al Qaeda. The US did NOT even bother with a vote on their last draft and they did not prove their case for launching a pre-emptive war. Even Richard Perle agreed that the war was in conflict with international law, and that was back in the fall of 2003.... let me google it... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1089158,00.html You must look at situations in perspective, the USA built up Bin Laden to hold off the Russians which were a FAR greater danger to both the Afghani's and the USA. They propped up Saddam because they needed to indirectly fight Iran and the radical Islamic movement. They fought the greater evil with a lesser evil, and now when they are finally destroying the lesser evil's completely you turn around and condemn them for doing it =p You've proven my point that the old axiom "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" DOES indeed bear bitter fruit. Nuff said. Your point is unfounded, mainly because you claim people hate North America for 'breeding' terrorism and hatred towards them. People hate North America because we 'have' and they 'have not', jealousy is the most comon cause of hatred and it has been cultivated by various world leaders since it is an excellent tool to get votes (just look at the Liberals, they have a 'proud' history using anti-Americanism to gain votes) This is where we disagree. I don't think it's just a matter of jealousy. It's been cultivated because these countries have been used as pawns between larger powers, with neither side giving a $h!+ about them, causing the death of thousand and keeping them down. It's been going on since the beginning of the civilized world. Many in the Middle East, and parts of Asia and Central/South America haven't had the CHANCE for self-governance because of this giant chess game, which I'm sure they'd be more than happy not to be a part of. As for the Liberals using anti-Americanism to gain votes, sure (especially when they support some of the same integration the Conservatives do, though not as boldly). I won't argue that, but that doesn't make all their points invalid. I'm not stating my opinion to defend the Liberal Party of Canada by ANY stretch of the imagination. I also understand that you're not a fan of the UN, so any points I raised re: the legality of the war are suspect to criticism on those grounds. That's worthy of a discussion forum all it's own. PS: if any parts of this post sound overly snarky, read them with a smiley. With all the quoting, I was "over quoto" on emoticons. Apparently there's a limit on the forum

I wouldn't agree that he's more powerful than the PM, nor is the CCCE more powerful than the gov't, but as a group of individuals, these (150 I think) CEOs are more powerful than any other "special interest group", even if that group is the Council of Mayors that represents the 78% of the population that live in urban communities. The CCCE does has a LOT of influence. I'd like to see more coverage of them from news media other than RobTV

Thomas d'Aquino is currently the President and Chief Executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.... http://www.ceocouncil.ca which used to be the BCNI. I only became aware of the CEO Council earlier this year, when researching more about lobby groups in Canada. That's when I learned of their history. For those who are curious... From www.thefreedictionary.com... The current CCCE makes it's agenda clear, and is interesting reading. Considering the influence this small number of men have in the corridors of Ottawa, I'd highly recommend reading their website.

It does if you claim to value honesty, especially if you rail against the US government using 'lies' as your weapons. Kind of flipfloped isn't it? Supporting one liar in the worlds eyes (Moores) for a liar to your eyes =p Except, as I point out above, none of us have seen the movie, so the accusation of "liar" is invalid. Go see it then get back to me. It's a straw man argument. So they should be ousted for using two specific words in the same sentance? Conspiracy theory anyone? At the time they were acting on intelligence, and that intelligence was not 100% correct (as we now know through the beauty of hindsight). However a very good result happened, and that is that Iraq is now free of a TERRORIST leader that ruled through terror. The depth of corruption from the White House is deeper than just connecting Hussein and al Qaeda. The Cheney/Halliburton deals, the abuse scandal, WMD ad nauseum. Where is the evidence claiming the innocence of Saddam? I dont see any of that either yet you claim he is, that thinking works both ways Not to mention the press sometimes intentionally leaves certain parts out to 'make things interesting'... dont trust the press, question it I always thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution. Are you suggesting that we turn a basic rule of law on it's head to suit your purpose? As for trusting the press, I haven't in a LONG time. Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities Actually by definition I would say he fits the bill =p Silly semantics... terrorism is perpetrated against governments, not by it. Hence, Saddam COULD be a supporter of terrorism against OTHER countries, but HE'S not a terrorist. Even the White House never slapped him with that label, because it's incorrect. Firstly, they still might =) Secondly, because Saddam was by far the most dangerous among them (according to the intelligence information). Obviously he wasn't. Bush came into the White House with a "get Iraq" agenda, at the cost of other, more important, security concerns, including al Qaeda and North Korea. By scraping "whole cloth" the largely "international law enforcement" bent of the previous administration, they completely botched their efforts against bin Laden. I guess testimony during the 9/11 commission doesn't count for anything? I am not seeing your point, please be more clear lol The point is to highlight that many have thought that the policy of containment instigated by the Bush I administration and continued by Clinton's was a failure, and that it should have been addressed years ago. What would you prefer, wait till they nuke you before you disarm them? Yeah thats a 'good' plan =p Double-standard, easy to fall back on, but oh-so-cowardly. If you dont understand what I mean it is simply that Liberals have a double standard that they dont believe exists, its a 'your damed if you do, damed if you dont' sort of deal. By invading Iraq you declare Bush and the USA as heartless invaders, murderers, etc etc. Yet should they have not acted and Saddam had nuked USA or even Canada WHOA would there ever be hell to pay (because hey, the Bush administration was warned right? They 'failed to act on intelligence information prior to the attack') Also dont start on the international law, if you believe the UN to be a credible institute then begin a new topic to discuss that one. I personally hold it in the highest contempt That's another bogus argument, as it's clear that Iraq didn't have nuclear capabilities. Remember the faked documents saying Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria, the British dossier that said Iraq could launch an attack with 45 minutes notices, which was also a bunch of hyperbole? The "damned if you, damned if you don't" stance doesn't hold up, when, as I mentioned before, the majority of the UN wanted to re-examine the situation in Iraq for years, but was consistently stonewalled by the US/UK. They just let it fester for a decade. Of course, that probably doesn't count in your eyes, because it was mainly people who are "left of centre" who were pushing for it. I'll admit that the UN is flawed and needs reform, but the international rules of engagement and justification for war are credible, unless you think it's better to just abolish it and let any nation declare war on another, using faked evidence. How so? I fail to see the bitter fruit, sorry but I just dont see the connection x.x I thought Iraq is a shining example of that. For decades, US foreign policy has propped up dictators to further their economic interests, regardless of said dictator's behaviour to their own citizens. Not only in the Middle East, either. They've done the same thing in this side of the ocean as well. Bin Laden is another example, or are you going to play apologist for the CIA in it's support of bin Laden in the 80's? Here's my point in a nutshell. US foreign policy has bred terrorism and hatred towards them through many regions of the world. If they refused to support leaders who are brutal dictators to their people, the main reason for hatred towards the US in these regions would be largely diffused. If you fail to see connections, there's not much I can do about that.

If fear of jail were an actual deterrent, then the nations with the largest prison populations should have the lowest crime rates. That is not the case. Look at the States, which has a more people incarcerated per capita than any other. By your rationale, it shoul dbe a crime free paradise. Obviously, thet's not the case. Prison is primarily punishment, nominally as a venue for rehabilitation, but quite useless as a deterrent. There are a number of other factors to look at, on a nation by nation basis, include what constitutes a jailable offense, and the length ot sentence. In the case of the States, there are many that want prison reform and repealing of the "Three Strikes" law in because it's causing the prison population to swell with people unjustly imprisoned for 25-life for relatively minor offenses. One early case of the "Three Strikes" law was the case of a man who was busted for possession of pot, and sentenced to 25 years. His previous offenses were 1) possession a few years earlier, and 2) stealing $20 from his grandfather's wallet 15 years earlier (his grandfather pressed charges to teach him a lesson). This isn't an isolated case, either. Just one article... http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/328/st...rikingout.shtml There's tons of analysis on those topics online, pro and con.

Except that ISN'T the end of discussion. By adopting a pre-emptive war policy, the current US administration is flying in the face of the policy that the US, and much of the Western world, has held for decades. I won't even get into the untold suffering the sanctions caused between the Gulf War and the current invasion. Unless of course, you're willing to say that whatever military action the US takes is justified, because it's the US doing it, not on the merits of the case itself.

So, we can take it that you are going to use one sentence as an excuse to avoid having to reply to anything else I have said? Furthermore, I stand by my comparison. Moore and Hitler are/were both bigots and gigantic liars who set out to deliberately deceive masses of people in order to further their own, selfish ends. yep. Seriously though, Moore's own status as a "fat, rich man who is practically a corporation" has no bearing on the discussion on the film itself, the contents of which none of us here have seen, I'll wager. I'm not going to try and defend something I haven't seen from people deriding it without seeing it. I don't want to play that game. I don't review movies I haven't seen Hawk: Actually, that's not what the war is for me. That's just one of the "reasons" that the administration used to justify it. On NUMEROUS occassions, White House officials made sure that Iraq and al Qaeda were mentioned in the same breath. Even this weekend, Cheney was defending that link, with no evidence to back it up, and outright lying to the press. As for Saddam being a "terrorist to his people", let's play semantics. He was a violent dictator, but using the word "terrorist" is wrong, by definition. Similarly, there are a number of countries around the world with despotic rulers, many even MORE virulently anti-American than Iraq EVER was. Some even had CREDIBLE links to al Qaeda. Why not go after them instead? The 10 years between Gulf I and II were plagued by political infighting between the US/Britain and the rest of the UN. Sanctions in their form at the time did little to weaken Hussein's stranglehold on his people, but did a lot to the people himself. By entering a new doctrine of "pre-emptive" war, the US has opened a can of worms of immense size, without stating a clear case for Iraq, and in direct violation of international law, on a number of levels. A decades long policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has sown bitter fruit indeed. But that's all beside the point, and would probably be better discussed in the US Politics forum, as I have already been (inaccurately at the time) accused of being offtopic, and don't want to validate that accusation. (or have I?)