SherH2A said:
The direct anecdotal response is not to the fact that the WMD used to justify the invasion but rather to the fact I used Chretien's name. The moment I used Chretien's name the issue became one of him being responsible for the duress of the Canadian Forces during the 90's. People here do not seem to be able to look beyond Chretien's name. It seems to be a Wolverton reaction as when the inhabitants of Dog River in Corner Gas automatically spit when they hear the name of their rival town.
I am very disappointed in this. I have a lot of respect for the posters here because I thought they could step beyond their comfort boundaries and examine facts dispassionately, but they are just human and are guided by their own passions.
Then you obviously didn't read my response.
Chretien didn't keep us out of Iraq due to any sense of honour or anything of the like.
I'm not raising any bitterness over the years of darkness of him treating us as Canada's Boy Scouts.
He kept us out because him and his real employer (Power Corp) were up to their eyeballs in an oil scandal and the business partner they were working with was good old Saddam.
You can't prove there were no WMDs, but the evidence is more that sufficient of his (Power Corp) involvement in the Oil for Food Scandal.
You can believe what you want. Chretien kept us clear because it would have cost his company plenty. It all boiled down to the buck and bad publicity for his bosses.
I also don't agree the war was unjustified. Saddam and his whole infrastructure had to go.