There are a number of interesting points being brought forward. I like to use a shotgun approach and address a number of them from my point of view. So in no apparent order:
So everyone knows where I stand, Canada should be a part of the coalition force, not because we of potential backlash of the US, but because it is the right thing to do. Our troops putting their life on the line to protect business interests is grotesque. As for standing with our American brothers because they would stand with us. Does anyone remember (not that long ago) an American general quoted as saying if Canada didn’t participate in the new “Star Wars†why should they stop a missile from hitting Ottawa. The either you are with us or against us is refusing us the exercise our own sovereignty. By telling other nations to expel Iraqis from Embassy, and when they refuse, accuse them of harboring terrorist didn’t gain them much support either. It is the walking softly and carrying the big stick policy, only without the walking softly.
As I said we should be a part of the coalition, however, I question the timing. First of all Saddam is a brutal dictator and deserves to be removed. Secondly, war is the bluntest instrument of national policy and should be used as a last resort, or self-defense. Is this the case here. If the US had followed up on the Canadian compromise, a deadline would have been set and consequences set out. Officials have stated that two or three weeks more would have made no difference. With the US no wanting to invest the extra time, they probably lost support when they needed it the most. Resolution 1444 had consequences attached that would have justified the invasion, but on a UN based deadline not US. The Canadian proposal would have set the deadline. As a matter of self-defense, there has never been a link between Al-Qaida and Baghdad. So this argument doesn’t wash. And this is not a war of liberation. To be liberated, you first must be occupied. Not run by your own dictator
What happens after the war. Who sets up the new Iraqis regime. The US shed blood to get to that point, so they will justifiably have a major say. Or do they pass it over to the UN. (Probably not). However, with so many opposing factions, the potential for another Afghanistan lurks on the horizon. And suppose the Iraqis democratically elect an Muslim cleric. What then. Right now the coalition is busy removing the devil we know and replacing him for a devil we don’t.
Whether the Americans like or not, they have failed to make the point yet war is not about oil. However, the oil fields are constantly mentioned. Rumsfeld went as far to say it would be a war crime for Iraqis to touch their “own†oilfields. If the Americans so badly wanted a northern front, why are they so insistent that the Turks stay out and not to move without US permission. Or is it because of the proximity of the northern oil fields.
Truth is the first casualty of war, and its showing here real time. Is not a showing of POW a part of reporting the news. The Americans are edgy, not because of the Geneva Convention, but because of Somalia. The US media are the first to jump on the freedom of the press, but seem to be practicing self- censorship but deciding what the public should or should not see. Is this unbiased reporting. A projectile lands in a market during daytime, and it may be a errant coalition missile or the Iraqis themselves. Nothing substantiated. Iraqis say the have shot down three Apaches, but the media annotates that the Iraqis have shown no proof. The Vice Chief of Staff states the American prisoners have been executed, but no proof is asked for or offered. The media has just become another branch of the Public Affairs. What we see is not necessary what we get.
As for war crimes, the Iraqis seemed to be engaged in several, but yesterday civilians were shot driving up and possible through a checkpoint. Where they aware of the new ROE. It may have been justified because of the car bomb incident, but innocents died doing what the normal do in their own country. It is becoming a dirty war, and nobody will escape. And the car bomb incident – war crime, terrorist act or resistance to an invasion of their homeland. And the target was combatants.
What happens to the UN now? Is the US going to bypass when it does not serve in its own interest. Or is the US going to dictate the world order. The UN is a forum of necessary compromise and when sides (France is just a s responsible for a total no war stance) refuse, the body becomes impotent. The UN must make resolutions with consequences, and must follow through when defied.
I have probably stir something up, but the main point is we all support the troops overseas, and pray causalities (all sides) stay at a minimum (I personally now some of the troops over there). Nor am I anti-American. I am just pointing out some contradictions and points that should be pondered. Everyone has an opinion and should not follow someone else’s blindly. Governments must think long and hard before putting them into harms way. I think the cause is justified (Hussein would never of complied) but the timing is suspect. And has a dangerous precedent being started where the US picks and chooses the bad guy. As well has the Christian West stirred up the Muslim East?
*cough* Ya wonder if we are all on the same side here hmmmm?? 
I try and see things as good and evil, black and white but i know thats not how things are. For every good point brought up about the US invading iraq theres also a bad one. Saddam is evil but we need oil. They use suicide bombers and we‘ve shot innocent people by accident. 
