Why isn't Canada helping to promote democracy?

[BubberMiley]

Canada isn't helping to "promote democracy" because Canada tries to avoid committing war crimes. History never looks fondly on those who facilitate them.

[newbie]

So let me get this straight you can assist in war operations again'st Iraqi forces, terrorists,and other hostile forces and not be considered actually taking part in the war on Iraq. Is that what you are saying.. Because that is what i am trying to tell you, that the Canadian Navy along with Maritime A/C assisted in operations again'st Iraq. The answer to your question is NO, Canadian troops did not land troops in Iraq, they did however take part in naval operations again'st

Iraq.

Our Liberal party lied to you and to the rest of us. Canadians did take part in the invasion of Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not according to Cmdre. Roger Girouard, head of the task force involved. He said "The Task Force is responsible for escorting ships, intercepting and boarding suspect ships and guarding against attacks on shipping" and that "Canada won't be participating in a possible war on Iraq." This was stated just prior to the invasion. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...44964458943_10/

[PocketRocket]

I find it sad that upon the cusp of the liberation of the Iraqi people--instead of jumping in there and helping--we stood on the sidelines secretly hoping that the whole thing would fail so that we could point to the Americans and say, "That's what you get for interfering with our greed for oil and Saddam's blood money".

For me, this is incorrect on a couple levels.

First, when GWB began this little crusade, he was NOT using the word "Liberate", rather it was all about "Saddam's got WMD's, we know he's got 'em, and we're going in to get 'em".

The whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" phrase wasn't even coined until the main fighting was mostly wound up.

No, back then it was "War on Iraq", nothing about liberating her oppressed people. That came MUCH later, when GW needed a fresh spin to keep up approval ratings on the war.

Second, I don't think too many Canadians are hoping for the US to have any great military failures, no matter how much noise you hear from a few on the extreme left.

Our countries are simply tied too closely for any of us to wish for any serious harm to come on America.

It's bad enough that we've got this juvenile knee-jerk anti-American reflex that permeates virtually every policy decision in this country, but the UK went to Iraq too. They are our mother country, whom we have stood side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder with in some of the most terrible conflicts this world has ever seen--even going so far as to declare war in 1939 against a country that never did anything to us and was absolutely no threat to Canada.

*AHEM*. I think Hitler's Germany was a hell of a lot bigger threat to Canada than Iraq could ever hope to be, even in Saddam's wildest dreams.

It was also, believe it or not, a DIRECT threat to England.

What you might call an "Imminent threat".

Hardly at all like the situation with Iraq, who was a threat to no-one, except perhaps Kuwait.

Consider too that England is also the "Mother country" of the USA, even though the US has long since loosened her ties with Britain far beyond what Canada has done.

That considered, how quick was the USA to jump into the war in Europe in WWII, in which her allies were being DIRECTLY ATTACKED???

Not very. She did, however, make a tidy profit selling arms to England, and also Russia, during WWII before deciding to join in the ETO.

"USA. Arms supplier to the world since 1939".

Now there's a tag-line.

If the UK could see that the Iraq war was a war that needed to be fought, why couldn't we?

Maybe Blair was wearing a different shade of sunglasses than Canadians were.

As for "needed to be fought", well hell, about half the people in the USA, and the same in Britain disagree with you, despite the constant exhortations from their respective governments that this "needed" to be done, and, in the USA in particular, virtually unlimited support from the MSM for about the first 2 years of the war.

I can't imagine what Tony Blair must've thought of us for our cowardly greedy decision. I can only hope that we are forgiven for our shameful stance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who the hell cares what Blair thinks of Canada??? We are not Blair's lapdog, although that word HAS been used to describe Blair himself.

Not by me, however.

And don't worry, MONTY, I do indeed forgive you for your shameless stance

[Army Guy]

Not according to Cmdre. Roger Girouard, head of the task force involved. He said "The Task Force is responsible for escorting ships, intercepting and boarding suspect ships and guarding against attacks on shipping" and that "Canada won't be participating in a possible war on Iraq." This was stated just prior to the invasion

The task force you are talking about was part of a US naval battle group which included an A/C carrier. what do you think that battle group was doing in the gulf if not supporting the invasion.

Intercepting and boarding what suspect ships ( Iraqi ships)

If that is not enough why are we now training Iraqi military and police forces in Jordan.

We are involved, our goverment is just not telling you the whole truth.

All this info is available on the DND web site.

[err]

First, when GWB began this little crusade, he was NOT using the word "Liberate", rather it was all about "Saddam's got WMD's, we know he's got 'em, and we're going in to get 'em".

The whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" phrase wasn't even coined until the main fighting was mostly wound up.

Actually, it was originally going to be called, get this:

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation

Unfortunately, someone at the Whitehouse caught it on time.... A little too close to the truth....

[newbie]

Not according to Cmdre. Roger Girouard, head of the task force involved. He said "The Task Force is responsible for escorting ships, intercepting and boarding suspect ships and guarding against attacks on shipping" and that "Canada won't be participating in a possible war on Iraq." This was stated just prior to the invasion

The task force you are talking about was part of a US naval battle group which included an A/C carrier. what do you think that battle group was doing in the gulf if not supporting the invasion.

Intercepting and boarding what suspect ships ( Iraqi ships)

If that is not enough why are we now training Iraqi military and police forces in Jordan.

We are involved, our goverment is just not telling you the whole truth.

All this info is available on the DND web site.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I went to the DND and couldn't find your reference re Jordon and the specifics. I think the implication was and is that we don't have ground troops in Iraq. Anything other than that is perception and interpretation.

[Army Guy]

I went to the DND and couldn't find your reference re Jordon and the specifics. I think the implication was and is that we don't have ground troops in Iraq. Anything other than that is perception and interpretation.

What is the difference, the Navy is still part of our Military forces is it not.

And your right it is all about perception and interpretation exactly what the liberals wanted. The fact remains that our military did assist the US naval forces during the time the invasion took place.

Jordan

[Montgomery Burns]

Canada isn't helping to "promote democracy" because Canada tries to avoid committing war crimes. History never looks fondly on those who facilitate them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except when it comes to beating civilian Somali teenagers to death...

[Martial Shadow]

cause, they are understaffed, underfunded, cause our WWI plane is gettin repaired, out canoe with 2 guys and a gun from WWII can't afford a compas and our state of the art subs can't close their doors.

[tml12]

cause, they are understaffed, underfunded, cause our WWI plane is gettin repaired, out canoe with 2 guys and a gun from WWII can't afford a compas and our state of the art subs can't close their doors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is sad but so true. Why can't we wake up and realize what is at stake here?

This election is about more than just child care...

[Montgomery Burns]

Army Guy:

Your correct, there were no WMD, nor were there any terrorists links

There were WMD found, but only a small amount and the press immediately wrote them off as small and "old". Apparently, Saddam was allowed to keep a little bit of WMD and older WMD were also okay. Sure, those missiles they found had capabilites of more than 150 KM, but they could only reach Israel. Nothing to worry about.

As for terrorist links, are you talking about links to 9-11 or links to terrorists in general?

If you mean 9-11, there is not 100% proof that Saddam was involved, but there is a lot of suspicion. Clinton appointed federal judge awarded two 9-11 families a judgement of $104 million in a civil case (requires 51% proof) against the state of Iraq, OBL and his terrorist network for its complicity in 9-11.

The media virtually ignored this judgement because it did not fit their anti-war view. Apparently, Clinton-appointed federal Judge Harold Baer felt that enough proof was offered about Al Qaeda training at Iraq's Salman Pak terrorist-training camp (there was a Boeing 707 at the Salman Pak terrorist-training camp and Al Qaeda was practicing how to take over a plane without any weapons).

More on Salman Pak

and here

Was Saddam involved in 9-11? No one is really sure. However, Saddam's Iraq was a virtual terrorist haven and Saddam certainly had links to Al Qaeda, as the 9-11 commission stated. Remember 9-11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton's (D-Ind) anger at how the media was distorting the Commission's findings? And let's not forget where Zarqawi fled after the Taliban was overthrown (Iraq).

Likely, the WMD are in Syria as satellite photos had shown much movement of trucks to Syria prior to the liberation. Bush foolishly wasted his time trying to go through the UN and allowed Saddam far too much time to hide the evidence--although they did find that Mirage Jet buried in the desert. That was cool; I saw the pic on the internet--an entire jet fighter plane buried in the desert.

[newbie]

...Saddam certainly had links to Al Qaeda, as the 9-11 commission stated... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this your mantra? Put this to bed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

[Montgomery Burns]

I find it sad that upon the cusp of the liberation of the Iraqi people--instead of jumping in there and helping--we stood on the sidelines secretly hoping that the whole thing would fail so that we could point to the Americans and say, "That's what you get for interfering with our greed for oil and Saddam's blood money". 

Well, I guess it was a good thing that the USA and Tony Blair got all those weapons of mass destruction that he was going to "get us" with.... By the way, how many did they get ????

If the UK could see that the Iraq war was a war that needed to be fought, why couldn't we?

I guess we couldn't see all those weapons of mass destruction as well as Tony could....

I can't imagine what Tony Blair must've thought of us for our cowardly greedy decision. I can only hope that we are forgiven for our shameful stance.

I think that history already shows that Canada's stance was "sensible" rather than "cowardly and greedy" as Montgomery would suggest....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hans Blix is a lying neocon!!

From Blix's UNMOVIC report dated March 6, 2003; two weeks before the war:

UNMOVIC analysed the contents of artillery shells that had been stored for at least twelve years. The results revealed that the shells still contained high purity Sulphur Mustard.

There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. (page 76)

It, therefore, seems highly probable that the destruction of bulk agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in July/August 1991, did not occur.

Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.

As a liquid suspension, anthrax spores produced 15 years ago could still be viable today if properly stored. Iraq experimented with the drying of anthrax simulants and if anthrax had been dried, then it could be stored indefinitely. (page 100)

Iraq has declared that it produced three bacterial BW agents: about 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin (agent A), about 8,500 litres of anthrax (agent and 340 litres of Clostridium perfringens (agent G). (page 125)

Although agent G spores produced by Iraq in 1990 could still be viable in 2003 if properly stored, Iraq probably has seed stocks and can produce this agent quickly following a decision to do so. (page 114)

The undeclared quantities of agents potentially that could have been produced up to 1991 are significant and, at least anthrax and Clostridium perfringens, if stored appropriately, could still be viable today. (page 127)

This was 3 months AFTER the December deadline Saddam was given to turn over all materials and documentation regarding his WMDs.

As Blix himself said:

Little of the detail in these declarations, such as production quantities, dates of events and unilateral destruction activities, can be confirmed. Such information is critical to an assessment of the status of disarmament. Furthermore, in some instances, UNMOVIC has information that conflicts with the information in the declaration. (page 139)

David Kay was able to uncover a secret network of biological labs, testing labs in prisons, ongoing work on possible bioweapons like Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, unmanned aerial vehicles, and live botulinum that could have been used to quickly produce biological weapons. He also stated, "The ISG nuclear team has found indications that there was interest, beginning in 2002, in reconstituting a centrifuge enrichment program."

And how many times to I have to post this on the forum?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Bush sought and obtained this resolution in October 2002. It was passed by both the House and the Senate, i.e., Congress, with Republican AND Democratic majorities. It has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. Out of all 23 clauses, there are only 2 that even mention stockpiles of WMD. If this was the principal argument for the war, the resolution sure didn’t make much of it. What the resolution did stress – in 12 separate clauses – were 16 UN resolutions that that Saddam had ignored or defied.

Those Security Council resolutions, were more than mere expressions of UN opinion. The first 2 of them (687 and 689) established the terms of the truce in the first Gulf War, whose violation was a legal cause of war itself. The other 14 were failed attempts to enforce them. This is why the US went to war: to enforce the UN resolutions and int'l law. At the end of the 1991 war, there was no peace treaty, merely a truce that left Saddam in place. The truce was sealed by UN resolutions 687 and 689 and they set the conditions by which the US - who was still technically at war with Saddam - would allow him to remain in power.

The 2003 war was not about only WMD.

I hate to harp on this - as Black Dog has accused me - but you cannot trust the liberal MSM when it comes to a conservative in power. You have to do the research yourself because they have proven to be untrustworthy time and time again. I never realized this until I got the internet. Now you know why they hate the rightwing bloggers--and Fox News.

Edited to add: The from page 125 is Agent B--which was in brackets; thus the emoticon.

[Montgomery Burns]

PocketRocket:

First, when GWB began this little crusade, he was NOT using the word "Liberate", rather it was all about "Saddam's got WMD's, we know he's got 'em, and we're going in to get 'em".

Read my above reply to Err.

The whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" phrase wasn't even coined until the main fighting was mostly wound up.

March 19, 2003: Operation Iraqi Freedom--President Bush addresses the nation

The war started a day later.

No, back then it was "War on Iraq", nothing about liberating her oppressed people.

From the above link...the first paragraph:

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

*AHEM*. I think Hitler's Germany was a hell of a lot bigger threat to Canada than Iraq could ever hope to be, even in Saddam's wildest dreams.

Germany was no threat to Canada whatsoever.

It was also, believe it or not, a DIRECT threat to England.

So?

What you might call an "Imminent threat".

To Canada? Nonsense.

Hardly at all like the situation with Iraq, who was a threat to no-one, except perhaps Kuwait.

Do the Israelis AND Americans who were killed by Palestinian homicide bombers - who were paid by Saddam - not count? Not to mention attempting to assassinate a US president and the extensive ties that Saddam had with terrorists.

[Montgomery Burns]

Reply to Pocket Rocket cont'd:

Consider too that England is also the "Mother country" of the USA, even though the US has long since loosened her ties with Britain far beyond what Canada has done.

Mother country of the USA? Surely, you jest. Haven't you noticed that Americans value their sovereignty big-time?

That considered, how quick was the USA to jump into the war in Europe in WWII, in which her allies were being DIRECTLY ATTACKED???

They officially joined when Germany declared war on them. Of course, they were "covertly" aiding Britain. Poor America. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Not very. She did, however, make a tidy profit selling arms to England, and also Russia, during WWII before deciding to join in the ETO.

You mean like the tidy profit Russia made from selling arms to Iraq, and China...and France, who even built a nuclear reactor for Saddam? Ah well. They're not America, so it was okay.

"USA. Arms supplier to the world since 1939".

Now there's a tag-line.

I think the Soviet Union should have had that tag. Indeed, Russia just sold $1 billion worth to Iran a week ago.

As for "needed to be fought", well hell, about half the people in the USA, and the same in Britain disagree with you, despite the constant exhortations from their respective governments that this "needed" to be done, and, in the USA in particular, virtually unlimited support from the MSM for about the first 2 years of the war.

Er, the govt reps are elected by the people and do what their constituents want.

Who the hell cares what Blair thinks of Canada???

Then why should America care about "world opinion?"

[Montgomery Burns]

First, when GWB began this little crusade, he was NOT using the word "Liberate", rather it was all about "Saddam's got WMD's, we know he's got 'em, and we're going in to get 'em".

The whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" phrase wasn't even coined until the main fighting was mostly wound up.

Actually, it was originally going to be called, get this:

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation

Unfortunately, someone at the Whitehouse caught it on time.... A little too close to the truth....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, it was all about oil...same for Jean Chretien.

Blood money while the Iraqis were being thrown into the 300+ mass graves by Saddam's regime.

[speaker]

I think that the only necessary response to the threads question is that we ARE helping to promote democracy, by militarily oppressing as few people as we can.

[Yaro]

Hans Blix is a lying neocon!!

From Blix's UNMOVIC report dated March 6, 2003; two weeks before the war:

This is funny on so many levels, your first statement is meant to imply that Hans Blix is not a Hawk, when of course he is an ultra hawk, and then you don't quote the last report that he made before the attack but the one he made two weeks earlier which simply implied a bunch of unprovable suppositions. As per usual lots of words little substance, at least your consistent.

[PocketRocket]

Canada isn't helping to "promote democracy" because Canada tries to avoid committing war crimes. History never looks fondly on those who facilitate them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except when it comes to beating civilian Somali teenagers to death...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A despicable chapter in the Canadian military history, granted, for which the perpetrators paid the price.

Unfortunately, the Airborne division was also disbanded as an indirect result of this, which was truly a shame.

On the other hand, would you rather see more of our boys accidently bombed by American aircraft???

[!!!]

As per usual lots of words little substance, at least your consistent.

Don't give him so much credit. MB has been peddling the same garbage since he slithered onto this board. As a public service, here's a shorter Monty Burns re: Iraq.

"Blah blah blah Salman Pak, blah blah blah blah Judge Baer blah blah blah mustard gas blah Chretien blah blood money blah blah blah Syria blah."

His crap (in particular, his nonsense about Iraq's WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda) has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, yet he clings to these with the pathetic faith of a small child unable to come to grips with the non-existence of Santa. It's like his whole being depends on those same six or seven tidbits of misinformation gleaned from NewsMax and right-wing conspiracy sites ('cause let's face it: theories like Saddam truckin' shitloads of WMD unnoticed across the border to Syria and then burying all evidence of his programs somewhere in the desert is straight up tin-foil hat stuff). As such he simply hammers away, hoping to accomplish through sheer bull-headed obstinence what he is unable to do through the persuasive power of argument. Given that reasoning with a fanatic is impossible, eventually, his opponents just give up, which he takes a s avictory and validation of his crackpot ideas. Sad, really.

[PolyNewbie]

The USA may be our friends and I have an enourmous amount of respect for them but corporate interests have taken over some aspects of their government due to the irresponsible American voters (as opposed to other elite interests in Canada that are just as bad) and they are in Iraq to rob the petroleum store.

Just because they are our friends does that mean we should help them ?

Sure we were in bed with Saddam but thats a separate issue.

[PocketRocket]

Don't give him so much credit. MB has been peddling the same garbage since he slithered onto this board.

C'mon, you're just being mean spirited now.

As a public service, here's a shorter Monty Burns re: Iraq.

"Blah blah blah Salman Pak, blah blah blah blah Judge Baer blah blah blah mustard gas blah Chretien blah blood money blah blah blah Syria blah."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You forgot to mention "No Blood For OOIILLLL!!!!!"

(Sorry, MONTY, couldn't resist)

Gotta give him credit though, he's definitely very firm in his beliefs.

[mcqueen625]

To answer the thread question, Canada is in Iraq according to the International Policy Statement:

"In Iraq, Canada will continue to play a major role in reconstruction and development, chairing the international donors’ committee for that country."

Plus I think we're spread a little thin what with our efforts in other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our government would sooner ally us with the likes of the U.N., China, Russia, France, and that is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy??

The U.N. up to their ears in corruption through the oil-for-food scam? China shoots their own people for protesting, yet Paul Martin still wants to trade with them. Initially our government said that if we traded with them they would be forced to change, instead our government has developed the same tactics when dealing with protestors. (G-8 Summit in BC), we just haven't resorted to shooting them YET, but give our government time. Both Russia and France were involved up to their necks in the oil for food scandal between Iraq and the U.N.'s Maurice Strong, Martin's mentor from Power Corporation. Russia is now selling long-range missle systems to Iran even after the Iranian President made the statement that Iran's goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I would much rather hitch my wagon to the United States than I would with any of the above countries or organizations. The United States is right when they state that the U.N. has become irrelevant. They have become irrelevant because of their own corruption and biases. Let's not forget, it was the U.N. who funded a bumper sticker camapign, just as Israel was in the process of pulling settlers and troops out of Gaza. These products consisted of banners, pins, mugs, and bumper-stickers handed out to Palestinian youth, and carried the slogan; TODAY-GAZA-TOMORROW-THE-WEST-BANK-AND-JERUSALEM. This from an organization that is supposed to be promoting peace and harmony throughout the world, while remaing completely unbiased. This is not the first time that the U.N. represented by Koffi Annan has taken sides in this dispute.

[speaker]

To answer the thread question, Canada is in Iraq according to the International Policy Statement:

"In Iraq, Canada will continue to play a major role in reconstruction and development, chairing the international donors’ committee for that country."

Plus I think we're spread a little thin what with our efforts in other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our government would sooner ally us with the likes of the U.N., China, Russia, France, and that is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy??

The U.N. up to their ears in corruption through the oil-for-food scam? China shoots their own people for protesting, yet Paul Martin still wants to trade with them. Initially our government said that if we traded with them they would be forced to change, instead our government has developed the same tactics when dealing with protestors. (G-8 Summit in BC), we just haven't resorted to shooting them YET, but give our government time. Both Russia and France were involved up to their necks in the oil for food scandal between Iraq and the U.N.'s Maurice Strong, Martin's mentor from Power Corporation. Russia is now selling long-range missle systems to Iran even after the Iranian President made the statement that Iran's goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I would much rather hitch my wagon to the United States than I would with any of the above countries or organizations. The United States is right when they state that the U.N. has become irrelevant. They have become irrelevant because of their own corruption and biases. Let's not forget, it was the U.N. who funded a bumper sticker camapign, just as Israel was in the process of pulling settlers and troops out of Gaza. These products consisted of banners, pins, mugs, and bumper-stickers handed out to Palestinian youth, and carried the slogan; TODAY-GAZA-TOMORROW-THE-WEST-BANK-AND-JERUSALEM. This from an organization that is supposed to be promoting peace and harmony throughout the world, while remaing completely unbiased. This is not the first time that the U.N. represented by Koffi Annan has taken sides in this dispute.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to differ about hitching my wagon to the USA, for all the reasons you have given for not trading with the others and for not respecting the UN. The USA gave most favoured trading status to the Chinese a long time ago. It is largely a result of this that the Chinese government has taken the country in the direction they are going, ie brutal suppression of human rights.

Canada has every reason to doubt the motives of the Russians, the French, and the UN. In exactly the same way we should be looking at the US. Maybe we don't need to worry about those countries greed, corruption, and ambition as much as we do our neighbour to the south.

To put down the UN for it's corruption is fair comment, but compared to our own government or just about any other in the world, they aren't all that bad. Plus we have the right to check on their budgets and find out how things are going. The UN should be unbiased and will undoubtably be taken to task for stepping over the bounds, but for the US to call them irrelevant is a little like the NHL saying the referees aren't doing a good job. As I understand it Annan was the American choice for the head of the UN.

I'll bet there are Americans selling weapons to a variety of countries, and as we learned from Iraq, all those weapons are not under our control again except at great cost. Let's hope for all the arms traders that they are having their next convention in a likely spot the next time the control slips.

[PocketRocket]

To answer the thread question, Canada is in Iraq according to the International Policy Statement:

"In Iraq, Canada will continue to play a major role in reconstruction and development, chairing the international donors’ committee for that country."

Plus I think we're spread a little thin what with our efforts in other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our government would sooner ally us with the likes of the U.N., China, Russia, France, and that is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy??

The U.N. up to their ears in corruption through the oil-for-food scam? China shoots their own people for protesting, yet Paul Martin still wants to trade with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you seem, from the tenor of this post, to be saying that it's wrong for Canada to be following a similar course of action as that of France et al, and would rather see us supporting hte USA.

You cite our willingness to have business dealings with China as a bad thing.

Well then, how do you reconcile this with the fact that China is responsible for the wealth of many major American corporations???

How do you reconcile this with the fact that a very large number of American manufacturers have become rich on the sale of products made in sweat-shops in China and other third world countries where they are basically paying slave-wages???

If you feel we should be following the American example, then why not take it into trade with China as well???

Sorry, but what's good for the goose....