More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

[Segnosaur]

For those who had followed the previous thread about Canada and its stance on the Iraq war, there are a few other things to note:

A recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that most people were against the war. However, the strongest opposition to the war came from Quebec (something like 80% opposed). Once Quebec is factored out, support for and against the war is almost even (around 47-48%). Albertans support the war most strongly.
See: http://www.ipsosreid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_cdn.cfm?id_to_view=1770

The Montreal Canadiens have to play a video by Jean Beliveau before hockey games where he talks about 'fair play' to try to reduce the booing of the American national anthem. (I understand people in the States have started to boo the Canadian antem.)

And finally, Canadian networks have shown video footage of captured coalition soldiers in Iraq. (American networks for the most part did not show the video.) The broadcasting of the footage was done against requests from the Pentagon, and may actually be against the Geneva convention (which requests that POWs not be used for propaghanda.)

 

[Javalar]

A recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that most people were against the war. However, the strongest opposition to the war came from Quebec (something like 80% opposed). Once Quebec is factored out, support for and against the war is almost even (around 47-48%). Albertans support the war most strongly.
See: http://www.ipsosreid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_cdn.cfm?id_to_view=1770

Last time I checked, Quebec was still part of Canada, thus any result you get from factoring them out means nothing. The majority of Canadians are still in accord with Chretien.

The Montreal Canadiens have to play a video by Jean Beliveau before hockey games where he talks about 'fair play' to try to reduce the booing of the American national anthem. (I understand people in the States have started to boo the Canadian antem.)

Your point being?

And finally, Canadian networks have shown video footage of captured coalition soldiers in Iraq. (American networks for the most part did not show the video.) The broadcasting of the footage was done against requests from the Pentagon, and may actually be against the Geneva convention (which requests that POWs not be used for propaghanda.)

Canadian networks did not use the footage of POWs for propaganda. Whether or not the Pentagon was against broadcasting it or not, means nothing

 

[Frostbite]

Hmm that seems a little nonsensical. We see dead people from the Israel-Palestinian wars all the time, buses full of tourists getting shot at in Egypt and other places. The news networks here in Canada aren't really politically biased, they have a tendency to show everything they can get their hands on. The news networks even mock the Canadian military, the fact that we spend a lot of money on obsolete equipment and only have a couple battleships and submarines, which are in really bad shape anyway (then again that could be a tweaked opinion based on what I saw in the news!). I don't see that's wrong with showing american casualties for the sake of informing us about what's going on. Whereas CNN often jumps to conclusions and makes false or speculative announcements - and correct themselves later, canadian networks usually don't.

 

[kourama]

I think the Americans started the anthem booing stuff a few months ago.

Not that it matters to me anyway...

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

Last time I checked, Quebec was still part of Canada, thus any result you get from factoring them out means nothing. The majority of Canadians are still in accord with Chretien.

Well, hopefully some day we won't have to worry about Quebec being part of Canada.

One of the things I hear in some of the media here is how the country 'overwhelmingly' rejects going to war. From the poll, that's definitely not the case... yes, a majority are against the war, but its not that big of a majority. (Let me put it this way, more people support the war than supported the Liberal party last election.)

I don't know if you are from Canada, the U.S. or elsewhere, but there are a lot of issues where Quebec takes a view which is contratictory to the rest of Canada. (Even back in World War 2, Quebec didn't want to get involved in the war.) And, there is a resentment in the rest of Canada, from people who think of the country as being run from Quebec (the last 3 prime ministers elected in Canada have been from there, excluding the 'blips'), and the fact that the federal government spends a lot of time and effort to 'appease' Quebec, to the detriment of the rest of Canada. This 'anti-war Quebec/neutral or pro-war rest of country' is just another example.

Your point being?

No major point. I found it an interesting news story. But, it does show 2 things:
- continued resentment by Quebeccers to the U.S.
- The fact that some people are worried enough about it to actually go through the trouble of trying to avert negative reactions.

Canadian networks did not use the footage of POWs for propaganda. Whether or not the Pentagon was against broadcasting it or not, means nothing

The request from the Pentaon was a simple one, and it was done to respect the privacy of the soldiers and their families.

 

[Segnosaur]

The news networks here in Canada aren't really politically biased,

I disagree... here in Canada we have:
- The CBC network, governement run with heavy union influence
- The Toronto Star, probably the biggest daily paper, and proud supporter of the NDP
- The Globe and mail, a pro-Liberal national paper
- Canwest Global, and all the newspapers owned by the Aspers, good friends of the Liberals.
That's quite a lot of media that's left of center.

I don't see that's wrong with showing american casualties for the sake of informing us about what's going on. Whereas CNN often jumps to conclusions and makes false or speculative announcements - and correct themselves later, canadian networks usually don't.

First of all, showing the footage is not really necessary in order to report what's going on. Its not going to make the story any more true if the video is shown.

Secondly, it wasn't casulties that were being shown, it was POWs. That is a very big difference. It is actually against the Geneva convention for prisoners to be made objects of "public curiosity". (And its not just the American goverment that says that; the Red Cross agrees. See: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20030323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prisoners ). Showing the video shows insensitivity to the Americans, in particular the families of the captured soldiers.

 

[Javalar]

Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

Well, hopefully some day we won't have to worry about Quebec being part of Canada.

◊◊◊◊ you! (Yes, you guessed it, I'm one of those Quebeccers)

One of the things I hear in some of the media here is how the country 'overwhelmingly' rejects going to war. From the poll, that's definitely not the case... yes, a majority are against the war, but its not that big of a majority. (Let me put it this way, more people support the war than supported the Liberal party last election.)

Point. But a majority is still a majority. So Chretien's decision was still the right one.

I don't know if you are from Canada, the U.S. or elsewhere, but there are a lot of issues where Quebec takes a view which is contratictory to the rest of Canada. (Even back in World War 2, Quebec didn't want to get involved in the war.) And, there is a resentment in the rest of Canada, from people who think of the country as being run from Quebec (the last 3 prime ministers elected in Canada have been from there, excluding the 'blips'), and the fact that the federal government spends a lot of time and effort to 'appease' Quebec, to the detriment of the rest of Canada. This 'anti-war Quebec/neutral or pro-war rest of country' is just another example.

Let's just say that the popular oppinion here is pretty much the contrary. Of course, it's all crap anyways. I just can't wait for the Parti Quebecois to go away! (It's election time right now.)

No major point. I found it an interesting news story. But, it does show 2 things:
- continued resentment by Quebeccers to the U.S.
- The fact that some people are worried enough about it to actually go through the trouble of trying to avert negative reactions.

Actually, until now, there wasn't much resentment towards the U.S. The resentment was caused by people's oppinions on the war, not the other way around.

 

[FFed]

Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

Well, hopefully some day we won't have to worry about Quebec being part of Canada.

Ya, hopefully they will be gone.

What bothers me about the CBC is that they go out of their way to try and be equal. On call in shows, they try and even out the calls so one is pro, the next is con, the next is pro, etc.

 

[Frostbite]

Secondly, it wasn't casulties that were being shown, it was POWs. That is a very big difference. It is actually against the Geneva convention for prisoners to be made objects of "public curiosity". (And its not just the American goverment that says that; the Red Cross agrees. See: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20030323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prisoners ). Showing the video shows insensitivity to the Americans, in particular the families of the captured soldiers.

Actually, there were casualties shown. Five dead US soldiers in a pool of dried blood. Shot in the stomach, back and chest. You can see Iraqi workers handling them and immediately after that you get to see the POW's getting questioned. They are of course in a state of shock.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

◊◊◊◊ you! (Yes, you guessed it, I'm one of those Quebeccers)

Oh good, at least I'm insulting the right province

Actually I was kidding about Quebec leaving. But I do find the whole situation frustrating. First, Quebec will only vote for a leader that's from Quebec (and one that will ignore the rest of the country), then they vote in a sepratist party that wants to take Quebec out of confederation. Although I would like Quebec to stay in confederation, I am very tired of the 'games' that are played, and I don't want any more appeasement. (Frankly I think we could have cured the whole problem had we had someone like the Alliance party in power, who might have been willing to call Quebec's bluff.)

Quebec: "We want to separate"
Rest of Canada: "Ok, bye and good luck"
Quebec: "Wait, you're letting us go? Aren't you going to give us more money to stay?"
Rest of Canada: "No"
Quebec: "Well, maybe we can stay a little longer."

Point. But a majority is still a majority. So Chretien's decision was still the right one.

It depends if the politicians running the country by opinion polls is a good thing. I'd like to think of a leader as someone willing to risk taking a less than popular stand in the short run, if it turns out to be the right decision in the long run (especially if the government has information not available to the general public, or the issue is very complex). I think the war is just one such decision. (Even if someone is against the war, they must see that the U.S. can really cause Canada a lot of problems if they decide to stop playing nice.)

Of course, if they really did use opinion polls for everything, Cretien would be gone, the GST would be abolished, the gun control bill would probably be eliminated, etc. So, what they decide to follow the 'majority' on is very selective. Why is the majority on this point so much more important than the majorities on the other areas? (More people in the country probably want Cretien gone than oppose the war.)

Let's just say that the popular oppinion here is pretty much the contrary. Of course, it's all crap anyways. I just can't wait for the Parti Quebecois to go away! (It's election time right now.)

Last I heard, the PQ was leading in the polls (after offering everthing under the sun, like 4 day work weeks to new parents).

Actually, until now, there wasn't much resentment towards the U.S. The resentment was caused by people's oppinions on the war, not the other way around.

Not quite sure what you mean.. resentment caused by who's opinions on the war? The U.S. people? The Quebec people?

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

Ya, hopefully they will be gone.

What bothers me about the CBC is that they go out of their way to try and be equal. On call in shows, they try and even out the calls so one is pro, the next is con, the next is pro, etc.

The criticism I've heard about the 'Town Hall' meetings on the CBC is that they stack them with virtually all left-leaning people. (I never watch them, so I just hear about them second hand.) Didn't they have some of these Town hall meetings where the majority of the studio audience thought the U.S. was to blame for 9/11?

 

[Segnosaur]

Actually, there were casualties shown. Five dead US soldiers in a pool of dried blood. Shot in the stomach, back and chest. You can see Iraqi workers handling them and immediately after that you get to see the POW's getting questioned. They are of course in a state of shock.

As far as I know, I don't think there was any criticsm about showing the dead soldiers. (Still, its inconsiderate to the families of those who died, and does nothing to 'improve' the reporting or accuracy of the news.)

The video of the live POWs is the problem. As I mentioned before (and showed in the link), the geneva convention is supposed to prevent live POWs from being public curiosities. That was the main issue. Iraq was wrong to make a video of them, but the Canadian media was wrong to broadcast it as well.

 

[Javalar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

Oh good, at least I'm insulting the right province

Actually I was kidding about Quebec leaving.

Oh! Then please accept my appologies.

But I do find the whole situation frustrating. First, Quebec will only vote for a leader that's from Quebec (and one that will ignore the rest of the country), then they vote in a sepratist party that wants to take Quebec out of confederation. Although I would like Quebec to stay in confederation, I am very tired of the 'games' that are played, and I don't want any more appeasement. (Frankly I think we could have cured the whole problem had we had someone like the Alliance party in power, who might have been willing to call Quebec's bluff.)

Quebec: "We want to separate"
Rest of Canada: "Ok, bye and good luck"
Quebec: "Wait, you're letting us go? Aren't you going to give us more money to stay?"
Rest of Canada: "No"
Quebec: "Well, maybe we can stay a little longer."

Agreed, I'm sick of it too.

It depends if the politicians running the country by opinion polls is a good thing. I'd like to think of a leader as someone willing to risk taking a less than popular stand in the short run, if it turns out to be the right decision in the long run (especially if the government has information not available to the general public, or the issue is very complex). I think the war is just one such decision. (Even if someone is against the war, they must see that the U.S. can really cause Canada a lot of problems if they decide to stop playing nice.)

Perhaps, but in this case, it was simple: no U.N. approval, no war. Even if there was secret information, it was the responsibility of the U.S. to share this information with other leaders. They did not.

Also, no matter how much problems the U.S. can cause us, it's still not a good reason to go to war. In fact it's a pretty bad reason. I don't think anyone would support the idea of going to war simply because the Americans are bullying us into it.

Of course, if they really did use opinion polls for everything, Cretien would be gone, the GST would be abolished, the gun control bill would probably be eliminated, etc. So, what they decide to follow the 'majority' on is very selective. Why is the majority on this point so much more important than the majorities on the other areas? (More people in the country probably want Cretien gone than oppose the war.)

Bad examples. (except for getting rid of Chretien, of course )

I doubt very much that a majority of Canadians would be against gun control laws. My guess is that most would rather see it's current form abolished considering how badly it's run right now. (They are overdubget by what? 5000% or something?)

Also GST is one of those "privileged information" thing you where talking about: they know how to run a government, we don't. (at least, more than the average Canadian)

Last I heard, the PQ was leading in the polls (after offering everthing under the sun, like 4 day work weeks to new parents).

Right now the PLQ (Parti Libéral du Québec) is leading the polls with a mere 1%. At least most people have seen what the ADQ (Action Démocratique du Québec) is really about and their popularity has sunk to 16% (they used to be at the same level as the PQ and PLQ!)

Not quite sure what you mean.. resentment caused by who's opinions on the war? The U.S. people? The Quebec people?

The Quebec people. What I meant to say, was that people here weren't against the war beacuse they resented the Americans, but the other way around: they resent the Americans because of the war.

And I should know: we Quebeccers can be real resentful if we want to!

[Edit: stupid spelling... *grumbles resentfully*]

 

[FFed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

The criticism I've heard about the 'Town Hall' meetings on the CBC is that they stack them with virtually all left-leaning people. (I never watch them, so I just hear about them second hand.) Didn't they have some of these Town hall meetings where the majority of the studio audience thought the U.S. was to blame for 9/11?

I haven't really watched any of them either but I have heard lots of criticism. The bits that I have seen looked pretty sad. It seems like anyone can call themselves an expert and get on CBC.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

Perhaps, but in this case, it was simple: no U.N. approval, no war.

Well, it depends on whether you think the U.N. should be the final decision maker on whether to go to war or not. Many (including myself) feel that too many countries have their own personal agendas, which prevent the U.N. from intervening in cases that will make a real difference.

Even if there was secret information, it was the responsibility of the U.S. to share this information with other leaders. They did not.

Actually I can't say that they did or didn't. The U.S. could have told Canada everything they knew (even telling them where Iraq has poison gas, or video of Saddam sitting naked on top of a nuclear bomb). But, Cretien could have still decided to side with public opinion (even if he knew that the Americans were right), just to protect his power.

Even if the U.S. didn't pass on any extra information to Cretien, there is a strong case to invade Iraq based on publicly available data (human rights abuses, failure to abide by U.N. resolutions, etc.)

Also, no matter how much problems the U.S. can cause us, it's still not a good reason to go to war. In fact it's a pretty bad reason. I don't think anyone would support the idea of going to war simply because the Americans are bullying us into it.

Well, you have to look at risks/benefits.

A simple resolution which said "We support the Americans" would not mean that Canada would have to risk our own troops. So, what would be the risks in that? Remember: The number of people against the war is not that great of a majority, and the number could easily start to tip in favour of war, if and when more evidence of Iraq's human rights and weapons programs start getting shown in the media. (For example, I saw a posting earlier which mentioned Australia, where people were origionally against the war, have polls showing a majority now side with the government.)

And look at the risks involved in the government's activities: Loss of jobs from Americans not buying Canadian products or vacationing here, the American government could be less eager to resolve trade disputes, they could clamp down on our borders, stop trading intelligence information with us, etc. Is it worth it to risk all of that, just because a not-too-overwhelming majority is against the war? (And no Canadians would be at risk in a simple declaration of support.)

Bad examples.

I doubt very much that a majority of Canadians would be against gun control laws. My guess is that most would rather see it's current form abolished considering how badly it's run right now. (They are overdubget by what? 5000% or something?)

That's why I said 'probably' be opposed. I haven't seen any opinion polls on it.

It was orignally supposed to cost 2 million (with several million more coming from liscencing fees, etc.) The cost now is over 1 billion, and some are suggesting it may reach 2 billion.

And why did you say they were bad examples?

Right now the PLQ (Parti Libéral du Québec) is leading the polls with a mere 1%. At least most people have seen what the ADQ (Action Démocratique du Québec) is really about and their popularity has sunk to 16% (they used to be at the same level as the PQ and PLQ!)

I had heard that the ADQ had actually lead the polls a few months ago. What exactly is that party's platform anyways?

Jean Charest must really be kicking himself. He went from Federal politics (where he could have perhaps done something to help the conservative party), to provincial (supposedly to help save Canada by leading the Liberals to victory), then gets kicked in the head by Cretien.

The Quebec people. What I meant to say, was that people here weren't against the war beacuse they resented the Americans, but the other way around: they resent the Americans because of the war.

And I should know: we Quebeccers can be real resentful if we want to!

Why do Quebeccers resent the war so much? Is it because of their roots and ties to France, the origin of the race of Cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

Of course, they were against WW2 as well. I have to wonder what a country would have to do to get Quebec to think "Ok, they're bad enough for us to get involved."

 

[Javalar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

Well, it depends on whether you think the U.N. should be the final decision maker on whether to go to war or not. Many (including myself) feel that too many countries have their own personal agendas, which prevent the U.N. from intervening in cases that will make a real difference.

I do believe U.N. should have been the final decision maker. So I guess we will have to disagree on that one.

Actually I can't say that they did or didn't. The U.S. could have told Canada everything they knew (even telling them where Iraq has poison gas, or video of Saddam sitting naked on top of a nuclear bomb). But, Cretien could have still decided to side with public opinion (even if he knew that the Americans were right), just to protect his power.

Maybe, maybe not. But unless I have proof of any duplicity by Chretien, I have to assume that he was honest. Besides, if the U.S. did send secret info. and that it was ignored by the countries that received, then would have given them leverage in the U.N. by asking opposing countries why they did not accept the information.

Anyways, it's all speculation.

(Saddam naked on a bomb !?!? )

Even if the U.S. didn't pass on any extra information to Cretien, there is a strong case to invade Iraq based on publicly available data (human rights abuses, failure to abide by U.N. resolutions, etc.)

Then why Iraq? Why now? Why do it for the reasons given by the U.S.? Should we be going something good even if it's for the wrong reasons?

Well, you have to look at risks/benefits. A simple resolution which said "We support the Americans" would not mean that Canada would have to risk our own troops. So, what would be the risks in that? Remember: The number of people against the war is not that great of a majority, and the number could easily start to tip in favour of war, if and when more evidence of Iraq's human rights and weapons programs start getting shown in the media. (For example, I saw a posting earlier which mentioned Australia, where people were origionally against the war, have polls showing a majority now side with the government.)

And look at the risks involved in the government's activities: Loss of jobs from Americans not buying Canadian products or vacationing here, the American government could be less eager to resolve trade disputes, they could clamp down on our borders, stop trading intelligence information with us, etc. Is it worth it to risk all of that, just because a not-too-overwhelming majority is against the war? (And no Canadians would be at risk in a simple declaration of support.)

Well, it all depends if you prefer having the U.S. against you or 66% of your own population instead. Such a resolution would only be a semi-truth. It would also make us hypocrites: pretending to be the friends of the U.S. just so they won't be mean to us.

That's why I said 'probably' be opposed. I haven't seen any opinion polls on it.

It was orignally supposed to cost 2 million (with several million more coming from liscencing fees, etc.) The cost now is over 1 billion, and some are suggesting it may reach 2 billion.

Geez! Talk about bad administration!

And why did you say they were bad examples?

Because they were not examples of what you where talking about: Positions the Government takes a stand on despite public opinion. (excluding, of course, those were the government has priviliged information)

I had heard that the ADQ had actually lead the polls a few months ago. What exactly is that party's platform anyways?

They did, until they revealed their platform. At first people were rallying behind them simply because they were an alternative.

Their platform:
2 speed health system
Flat tax rate (backed down)
Education bonds (backed down)
Firing functionaries to reduce government size (not to popular with said functionaries)
At one point, one member even suggested not offering expensive treatments to the elderly (!!)

Jean Charest must really be kicking himself. He went from Federal politics (where he could have perhaps done something to help the conservative party), to provincial (supposedly to help save Canada by leading the Liberals to victory), then gets kicked in the head by Cretien.

Why do Quebeccers resent the war so much? Is it because of their roots and ties to France, the origin of the race of Cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

Don't know, but never, ever compare us to the French! In fact, in some area, we hate their guts.

Of course, they were against WW2 as well. I have to wonder what a country would have to do to get Quebec to think "Ok, they're bad enough for us to get involved."

If I remember my history, Quebec wasn't against the war. But rather they were against drafting.

I could be wrong thougth.

Also, most of the Francophone population was led by the clergy at that time. (we sure aren't nowadays! In fact we have the lowest percentage of church attendance in all of North America!)

 

[Javalar]

You know Segnosaur, you are really cutting down my productivity!

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Canada, Iraq and the U.S.

I do believe U.N. should have been the final decision maker. So I guess we will have to disagree on that one.

Ok then, 2 questions:

1) Do you think its ability as the final decision maker is adequate, or do you think changes in the decision making process are needed?

2) Is your belief of the U.N. as the final decision maker absolute in all situations? Is there any circumstance in which you would say "This is bad and we should react", even if the the U.N. fails to act?

Maybe, maybe not. But unless I have proof of any duplicity by Chretien, I have to assume that he was honest. Besides, if the U.S. did send secret info. and that it was ignored by the countries that received, then would have given them leverage in the U.N. by asking opposing countries why they did not accept the information.

First of all, Cretien has lied enough that if he says the sky is blue, I'll look outside first to see if he is telling the truth.

Secondly, there are many reasons why a country would not act on secret info sent by the U.S. Perhaps they feel that their population will not question their decision, or the information will never come to light. Or perhaps (like France and Germany), the secret info they receive implicates themselves.

Then why Iraq? Why now? Why do it for the reasons given by the U.S.? Should we be going something good even if it's for the wrong reasons?

I would say that if the world will be better off, action is justified even if its for different reasons than the U.S. says. (And what 'wrong' reasons are there?)

I remember reading about a British MP who went to Iraq. (Sorry, I don't remember her name, can anyone help?) She was typically viewed as an anti-war type. When she came back, she said she supported military action, not because of possible WMD (which was the main reason given by the US), but because of human rights abuses.

As for why Iraq and why now, that has been covered in many areas. Iraq, because it is ruled by a bad person, supports terrorism, and oppresses their people, and now because we've already waited 12 years, in the mean time thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. But, I don't want to get into the whole pro/anti war debate. (I've given a lot more detail of my opinions on other threads I can point you to if you want.)

Well, it all depends if you prefer having the U.S. against you or 66% of your own population instead. Such a resolution would only be a semi-truth. It would also make us hypocrites: pretending to be the friends of the U.S. just so they won't be mean to us.

66% of people may be against the U.S., but I suspect 100% of people are against loosing their job and/or their standard of living (as might happen to many people if the U.S. decides to play tough and retaliate for Canadian antiamericanism by tightening up the border, or Americans decide not to travel to Canada, etc.)

As for hypocrites... We are hypocrites now. We claim America as a friend, and then stab them in the back. (Anti-american comments by politicians, failure to support the US, interference in the last US election, etc.)

And then, the other question is how 'soft' that 66% figure is. Will it drop to under 50% if and when stories start coming out of Iraq about Saddam's actions, or if the Americans really do start to retaliate against Canada (if they haven't already)?

Because they were not examples of what you where talking about: Positions the Government takes a stand on despite public opinion. (excluding, of course, those were the government has priviliged information)

I have to disagree... keeping the GST is something I would consider 'taking a stand'. Keeping the gun control registry in its current form is 'taking a stand'. And these have a much bigger impact on Canadians than support of a war.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ok, recall at the start of the topic, I published a link to an opinion poll (by Ipsos-Reid), which showed that the majority of people were against the war in Iraq. (52% against, versus 45% for, with a stong anti-war stance in Quebec, and an almost even split in the rest of the country.)

Well, I've recently seen an article on a poll run by Pollstar which shows different results. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id=18DBB36D-4CCA-47BC-AAA2-CF168F2B584B .

Unfortunatley, I can't find the raw data yet (I think it will be released later), and what was in the article seemed heavily edited. But, some of the stuff I found interesting:
- Most people believe the U.S. should have won backing at the UN. (I assume they mean that the U.S. had adequately made their case and other countries should have supported them)
- 6 out of 10 thought Canada should have sent in troops to help
- 90% think Canada needs to improve its relationship with the U.S. (This number is interesting, because it shows that even some anti-war people think we need to improve our relationship.)

Of course, these results seem to differ a little from the Ipsos-Reid poll. Any idea why the first poll shows Canadians opposed, but this one seems to show them supporting the U.S. efforts? Could public opinion change that quickly?

 

[Segnosaur]

Ok, yet a few more notes for those interested in Canada and its view on Iraq and the U.S.:

A new web site has been set up for Canadians supporting the U.S.: See: http://www.canadianfriendsofamerica.net/

Looks like a lot of the hockey establishment supports the war. Don Cherry originally didn't want to talk about Iraq, but he made some comments in his coaches corner segment supporting the U.S. action. And Wayne Gretzky has given his support too. On the radio this morning they played a clip from the playing of the U.S. anthem at the Ottawa Sentators game, and people were actually cheering. Montreal booed the anthem, but since the Montreal Canadiens couldn't win a Stanley cup unless they were given the best player every year, I don't consider them a real hockey team. (Just kidding!)

Perhaps we should challenge Saddam to a hockey game.

And the American ambassor to Canada criticized Canada very strongly. (See: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/03/26/51610-cp.html ) This caused a lot of complaints from various Liberals (along with a lot of "we're still good friends" comments.) Bush is supposed to visit here in a few months, but may cancel his visit.

And for all those in the Ottawa area, there is a rally in support of the United States on parliment hill on Saturday.

Edited to add: And yet even more evidence of split-personality in Ottawa: Bill Graham saying the government "Supports America's desire for regime change", then later says they don't support actions unless sanctioned by the UN. See : http://www.canada.com/ottawa/story.asp?id=89693ECE-6A3E-43BA-898A-6D27BAD04F83