Unearthed Job Application Stephen Harper 2005

The latest Conservative attack ad to discredit Justin Trudeau is childish at best with a strong scent of desperation.

It's a mock meeting discussing Trudeau's resume as he applies for the job of Prime Minister.

However, going back to 2005, when Stephen Harper himself was applying for the job, what were his credentials?

He quit most things he started.  He was a staffer for Brian Mulroney but quit when Mulroney refused to address cancelling Employment Insurance, or at least making it more difficult to obtain.

He was a Reform Party Member of Parliament but quit when things weren't going his way.

He ran the National Citizens Coalition, a corporate advocacy group initially created to end Public Healthcare in Canada.  He quit that to run for leader of the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance/Canadian Reform Alliance Party (CRAP)/Conservative Party of Canada (They had an identity crisis).

He won that race but when he lost the 2004 election .... he quit.  With a lot of misguided persuasion he got back on the horse, but in 2005 he was hardly Prime Minister material, though he did know how to cheat to win an election, a skill he has only gotten better at.

So what if we put ourselves in that room, with that group, as they determine whether or not Stephen Harper was right for the job.

"Let's talk about Stephen"

"I hope he's not as bad as his hair"

"What does he know about balancing a budget"

"He did study economics so would know that if you grow the economy, the budget will balance itself.  No economist would argue on that point, so let's move on. "

"What does he say about keeping us safe?"

"Well he has been on a celebrity Fox News tour telling anyone who'd listen that we should join George Bush in Iraq."

"That's crazy talk.  Iraq was not involved in the attack on the World Trade Centre.  Besides, even if they defeat Al-Qaeda as they suggest, there will always be another group, perhaps worse, ready to take their place.  Canadians have spoken clearly.  No Iraq War!"

"If his aim is to simply go where the United States goes, what kind of leader will he be?  Sounds more like a follower to me. "

"So what are his priorities, other than making war?"

"He wants to put a stop to same-sex marriage"

"Like that's our biggest problem."

Laughter

"I've read a copy of his speech to the Reform Party Assembly that earned him a round of applause.  In it he wanted to cancel EI, Old Age Security and Canada Pension"

"Yes.  A lot of seniors left the Reform Party after that.  He's not worth the risk.  Our seniors need those safety nets, as do our workers."

"And don't forget that he sued Canadians because he wanted corporations to determine the outcome of elections."

"I'm not saying some day, but I'm saying forever.  This man is not right for this country.

"Who does his hair?  I suppose if he got the job he'd hire a hairdresser. But can't he afford one now?"

"Stephen Harper.  He's just not right for Canada."

More Government Propaganda While Canada Once Again Stands Alone

A very strange Oped piece appeared in the Globe and Mail on the weekend, written by none other than Stephen Harper. It was a follow up to a government announcement that we would be giving the Ukrainian military another 220 million dollars, on top of the 300 million already provided, to assist in their battle with rebel forces.

It reads like a typical propaganda piece, laying all of the blame on Russia's doorstep, for the horrific downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, that killed 298 innocent civilians.

Had this appeared under a different byline, it would simply reflect the views of the author. However, when it comes from the leader of a country, it is something much more.

An official position. And that position is pretty clear. Russia is our sworn enemy.

The United Nations is investigating the incident, and most in the international community are taking a wait and see approach, before becoming judge, jury and executioner.

While there are calls to strip Russia of their right to host the The World Cup in 2018, British Prime Minister David Cameron, is calling for cooler heads to prevail, and FIFA see it as a potential "force for good". It might just be the golden ticket for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, since sanctions don't appear to be working.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot, has actually called Vladimir Putin personally, to discuss the situation. This is something that is no longer an option for Canada, as our government has already burned too many bridges with the Russian leader, making us irrelevant.

Australians still don't approve of Abbot, but do believe he is leading the way in diplomacy, with a position contradictory to Harper's.

It is not inconceivable that the shooting down of the passenger flight was an accident. As the National Post points out, '-Iran Air Flight 655—shot down on July 3, 1988, not by some scruffy rebel on contested soil but by a U.S. Navy captain in command of an Aegis-class cruiser called the Vincennes.'; it's happened before.

The Reagan administration tried to cover it up, but eventually the truth came out, as it no doubt will in this latest tragedy.

Conservative MP, Peter Goldring, is joining Sarah Palin, in calling for an all out war with Russia, reminding us of Harper's Reform Party and their bumper sticker foreign policy. Simple and dangerous solutions to complex issues.

Obama may provide equipment that would help to reveal 'specific locations of surface-to-air missiles controlled by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine so the Ukrainian government could target them for destruction', but with only 17% of Americans supporting military engagement in the area, I doubt he would consider doing anything more.

Besides, the optics may not be good, given that Joe Biden's son now works for a Ukranian company that is pushing for energy independence from Moscow.

So what is Harper's endgame here? Is he trying to earn some respect, given his abysmal record on foreign policy?

In 2003, when Leader of the Opposition, he spoke out in favour of Canada joining the U.S. In Iraq, and now that country is in shambles, with 63% of Republicans believing that it was a mistake.

He escalated our involvement in Afghanistan, and now the Taliban is stronger than ever, even winning in areas they never held before the invasion.

Canada led in the regime change in Libya, and despite spending $800,000 on a "victory" celebration, Libya is in a bloody mess. Republicans blame Obama, but who should we blame?

Engaging in a war of words, with an enemy he will never have to actually fight, (despite the views of the crazy wing in his Party), is a safe way to inflate his ego. However, I think there may be another motive.

Vladimir Putin was tanking in the polls, until he took a firm stand on Western interference in the Ukraine. Now his popularity with Russian citizens is overwhelming.

Is Stephen Harper hoping that by taking a firm and very public stand with Russia, that Canadians will view him as not so bad after all, despite his horrendous policies?

Could be.

Sadly, it might just work.

The "Clash of Civilizations" or the "Smash of Civilizations"? The True Nature of This War

On January 24, 2003, a group of New York-based collectors and dealers; members of an organization called the American Council for Cultural Policy, met with the Bush administration and Pentagon officials.

The purpose of the meeting was to encourage Bush to ignore international laws, by allowing the treasures of ancient Mesopotamia (now Iraq), to fall into the hands of private collectors.

This group of wealthy Americans, had been coveting these prized objects for some time, giving them a commercial value, rather than the historical and religious value bestowed upon them not only by the people of Iraq but indeed anyone seeking to preserve our ancient cultural heritage.

So while George Bush was promising scholars and historians that he would do his utmost to protect the ancient holdings, in the land referred to in archaeological circles as "the cradle of civilization", he had already made a commitment to the American Council for Cultural Policy, that he would make sure they got what they craved.

I mean what good was all that wealth, when they couldn't obtain the unobtainable?

And Bush didn't disappoint. According to Chalmers Johnson (d. 2010):

On April 11, 12, 13, and 14, 2003, the United States Army and United States Marine Corps disgraced themselves and the country they represent in Baghdad, Iraq's capital city. Having invaded Iraq and accepted the status of a military occupying power, they sat in their tanks and Humvees, watching as unarmed civilians looted the Iraqi National Museum and burned down the Iraqi National Library and Archives as well as the Library of Korans of the Ministry of Religious Endowments.

Their behavior was in violation of their orders, international law, and the civilized values of the United States. Far from apologizing for these atrocities or attempting to make amends, the U.S. government has in the past five years added insult to injury. Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense and the official responsible for the actions of the troops, repeatedly attempted to trivialize what had occurred with inane public statements such as "Democracy is messy" and "Stuff happens." (1)

During those five years, thieves had stolen at least 32,000 items from some 12,000 archaeological sites across Iraq with no interference from the occupying power.

In 2006, the World Monuments Fund took the unprecedented step of putting the entire country of Iraq on its list of the most endangered sites. The torching of books and manuscripts in the Library of Korans and the National Library was in itself a historical disaster of the first order. Most of the Ottoman imperial documents and the old royal archives concerning the creation of Iraq were reduced to ashes.

... about a million books and ten million documents were destroyed by the fires of April 14, 2003. Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East correspondent of the Independent of London, was in Baghdad the day of the fires. He rushed to the offices of the U.S. Marines' Civil Affairs Bureau and gave the officer on duty precise map locations for the two archives and their names in Arabic and English, and pointed out that the smoke could be seen from three miles away. The officer shouted to a colleague, "This guy says some biblical library is on fire," but the Americans did nothing to try to put out the flames.

At a conference on art crimes held in London a year after the disaster, the British Museum's John Curtis reported that at least half of the forty most important stolen objects had not been retrieved and that of some 15,000 items looted from the museum's showcases and storerooms about 8,000 had yet to be traced. Its entire collection of 5,800 cylinder seals and clay tablets, many containing cuneiform writing and other inscriptions some of which go back to the earliest discoveries of writing itself, was stolen. (1)

Notwithstanding the murder of a million people, the destruction and theft of Iraq's archaeological treasures, represents one of the most horrific acts in world history.

The Smash of Civilizations

In Lawrence Martin's book, Harperland, he reveals that when it comes to foreign policy, our current PM does not see the world as a global community, but as a "clash of civilizations". (2)

Those three words are no lightweights. What they represent is the Neoconservative total war strategy.

However, Chalmers Johnson instead refers to this disgraceful display as a "smash of civilizations", and I think that's a better term. Because "clash" suggests the equality of enemies. And since we are fighting those with fewer and less sophisticated weaponry, it is hardly a fair fight.

And "smash" is a better term to describe the attempted annihilation of not only a religion, but a culture.

Johnson likens the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the "total destruction" of ancient Baghdad by the Mongols in AD 1258, under the leadership of Genghis Khan's grandson, Hulagu Khan.

According to historian Steven Dutch:

Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them." (3)

And it's not too difficult to compare the actions of the allied forces In Iraq to those of the Mongols eight centuries ago.

The Grand Library of Baghdad, containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river. Citizens attempted to flee, but were intercepted by Mongol soldiers who killed with abandon .... Ian Frazier of The New Yorker says estimates of the death toll have ranged from 200,000 to a million. The Mongols looted and then destroyed mosques, palaces, libraries, and hospitals. Grand buildings that had been the work of generations were burned to the ground. (3)

The Neoconservatives seek to accomplish the same "psychological blow" from which Islam may never recover. This is not simply about oil, but "total destruction", with oil being a benefit, meaning that the West will never be again challenged for the crude in the Middle East.

Iraq, before the Americans put Saddam Hussein in power, was also a thriving country, and Baghdad, one of the most modern cities in the world. But what is it now?

And the "smash' was about more than just the theft and destruction of artifacts. It was something much bigger.

At the six-thousand-year-old Sumerian city of Ur with its massive ziggurat, or stepped temple-tower (built in the period 2112-2095 BC and restored by Nebuchadnezzar 11 in the sixth century BC), the Marines spray-painted their motto, "Semper Fi" (semper fidelis, always faithful) onto its walls. The military then made the monument "off limits" to everyone in order to disguise the desecration that had occurred there, including the looting by U.S. soldiers of clay bricks used in the construction of the ancient buildings.

Until April 2003, the area around Ur, in the environs of Nasiriyah, was remote and sacrosanct. However, the U.S. military chose the land immediately adjacent to the ziggurat to build its huge Tallil Air Base with two runways measuring 12,000 and 9,700 feet and four satellite camps. In the process, military engineers moved more than 9,500 truckloads of dirt in order to build 350,000 square feet of hangars and other facilities for aircraft and Predator unmanned drones.

They completely ruined the area.

On October 24, 2003, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service built its own modern ziggurat. It "opened its second Burger King at Tallil. The new facility, colocated with [a] Pizza Hut, provided another Burger King restaurant so that more servicemen and women serving in Iraq could .. get a whiff of that familiar scent that takes them back home."

... At Babylon, American and Polish forces built a military depot, despite objections from archaeologists. John Curtis, the British Museum's authority on Iraq's many archaeological sites, reported on a visit in December 2004 that he saw "cracks and gaps where somebody had tried to gouge out the decorated bricks forming the famous dragons of the Ishtar Gate" and a "2,600-year-old brick pavement crushed by military vehicles." Other observers say that the dust stirred up by U.S. helicopters has sandblasted the fragile brick facade of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon from 605 to 562 BC.

... "Between May and August 2004, the wall of the Temple of Nabu and the roof of the Temple of Ninmah, both of the sixth century BC, collapsed as a result of the movement of helicopters. Nearby, heavy machines and vehicles stand parked on the remains of a Greek theater from the era of Alexander of Macedon [Alexander the Great]." (1)

They've ruined the area for future archaeological excavations.

This is not a "clash", but a "smash". A heart wrenching, inhumane attempt to completely destroy an adversary.

I had been going to blog on this after Christmas, thinking that perhaps it wasn't appropriate during this time, but then I realized that there couldn't be a better time. As we share a message of "Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward Men", we might be reminded for a moment of what those words are supposed to mean.

And this isn't it.

Sources:

1. Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope, By Chalmers Johnson, Metropolitan Books, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-9303-2, Pg. 40-51

2. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 79

3. Battle of Baghdad (1258), Multilingual Archive, Powered by WorldLingo

The War in Iraq Has Made Democracy There Less Attainable

We don't talk about the Iraq War much in this country anymore. In fact, we don't really talk about anything of importance.

The wonderful Helen Thomas, who covered every U.S. president since JFK, discusses her disappointment with the White House Press Gallery, and if you didn't know better, you'd think she was discussing our own non-existent press gallery, who seem more concerned with what MPs are wearing, than what the most secretive government Canada ever had, is doing in our name.

A few are coming out of their coma, but sadly not many, and I'm afraid our involvement in Afghanistan is going to create the same mess that we are now seeing in Iraq. Billions of dollars and so many lost lives for absolutely nothing.

Maxime Bernier stated that this war was about control of the drug trade. Others suggest it's for oil and military contracts. They're probably right on all counts, but it sure isn't about democracy, because we've just seen the end of democracy in this country. How can we hope to spread it anywhere else.

The only thing being spread these days is pure shite.

Journalist and author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization”, Diana West, discusses the chaos that now rules the day in Iraq, and how much more difficult it is for Christians in that country, and indeed all citizens.

Victory? Really?
By: Diana West,
The Dickinson Press
December 29, 2009

There’s at least one more aspect to consider when appraising the past six years in Iraq climaxed by the “surge.” This would be the indirect effect of “reflected glory,” if such a quaint term applies, and has to do with the sort of state the U.S. helped create in Iraq.

I don’t know how to candy-coat reality: Post-surge Iraq is a state of increasing repression, endemic corruption, religious and ethnic persecution and encroaching Sharia. Recent media reports flag just some of these glaring truths that American elites, civilian and military, seem to shy away from.

In October, from AsiaNews, came the latest news of, to quote the headline, “Sharia Slowly Advancing in Najaf and Basra, for Non-Muslims Too.” Here, the Sharia (Islamic law) is invoked to ban alcohol sales and consumption by non-Muslims — namely, Christians, given the eradication and dispersal of Iraq’s ancient Jewish population — “on the grounds that Iraq’s constitution,” as Ahmad al Sulaiti, deputy governor of Najaf, notes, “bans everything that violates the principles of Islam.’’

In November, Reuters highlighted the government crackdown on the media via lawsuits against criticism, and laws enabling the government to close media outlets that “encourage terrorism, violence,” and — here’s a handy catch-all — “tensions.” There are new rules to license satellite trucks, censor books and control Internet cafes. “The measures evoke memories of ... the laws used to muzzle (journalism) under Saddam Hussein,” Reuters writes.

In December, the British paper The Observer reported that hundreds of Iraqi police and soldiers descended on Baghdad’s 300 nightclubs where they “slapped owners’ faces, scattered their patrons and dancing girls, ripped down posters advertising upcoming acts and ordered alcohol removed from the shelves.” The official reason? No licenses. But, the paper reports, “the reality is that a year-long renaissance in Baghdad’s nightlife may be over as this increasingly conservative city takes on a hard-line religious identity.” As one club owner said: “This is a political decision with a religious agenda. (Prime Minister Nouri al-) Maliki needs the votes of religious parties ... They (the government) supported us and gave us incentives to reopen the clubs, then when it suited them, they sold us and themselves out to the fundamentalists.”

There’s a lot of that “selling out to the fundamentalists” going around post-surge Iraq, where, it must be faced, one particularly shocking, unintended consequence of U.S. involvement has been the religious “cleansing” of Iraq’s ancient Christian populations. In 2003, 1 million Christians lived in Iraq. Six years later, after successive waves of violence and intimidation largely unchecked by either Iraqi government action or U.S. intercession, more than 500,000 Christians have fled the country. It is a crisis that inspired Christian leaders to assemble in Baghdad in December for a conference piteously titled: “Do Christians Have a Future in Iraq?”

This anti-Christian persecution is a large part of why the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended in December 2008 that the State Department name Iraq a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) — its dread Saddam-era designation. (Recommendation denied.) In May, to strengthen human rights in Iraq, the commission’s Iraq report included suggested amendments to Iraq’s constitution, which, not incidentally, boil down to abolishing the constitutional supremacy of Islamic law. (And yes, U.S. legal advisers helped write this same Sharia-supreme governing document.)

For example, the commission suggested deleting the line in Article 2 that says no law may contradict “the established provisions of Islam.” It suggested revising the “guarantee of ‘the Islamic identity of the majority’ to make certain that this identity is not used to justify violations” of human rights. It also suggested that “the free and informed consent of both parties (be) required to move a personal status case to the religious law system,” and “that religious court rulings (be) subject to final review under Iraq’s civil law.” Another suggestion was to remove “the ability of making appointments to the Federal Supreme Court based on training in Islamic jurisprudence alone.”

Good ideas — if religious freedom is the objective. But it is not the objective in Iraq, or in other Islamic countries. Which should make the United States, founded and defined by such freedom, look before nation-building, and ask: Do we really want Americans to “surge” and risk death to build nations such as this to stand as monuments to “victory?”

Conservatives Promote Anglophones and Angloshere Wars

When the Reform Party was first established it was basically a protest party, and much of their protest was against bilingualism, special status for Quebec and multi-culturalism.

However, after unsuccessful attempts to break ground east of Manitoba, they changed their outward approach, trying to paint themselves as being more open to the rest of the country, especially vote rich Quebec.

Despite this, during the 1997 campaign they released a controversial television advertisement where the faces of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, Progressive Conservative leader Jean Charest, and the separatist Premier of Quebec Lucien Bouchard, were crossed out followed by a message saying that Quebec politicians had dominated the federal government for too long and that the Reform Party would end this favoritism towards that province.

In fact, many supporters still wanted the Party to only represent English Canada. They had aligned themselves with APEC, (the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), an anti-French hate group that also campaigned against the government's policy of official bilingualism.
(extremist groups like this would play an integral part in the Reform Party's and later the Conservative Party's rise to power.)

As late as 2003, the anglophone culture was still predominant, as revealed by the party's (now the Canadian Alliance) protests against Chretien's refusal to send Canadian troops to Iraq. We already know how Harper felt, with his plagiarized Howard speech.

Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper also wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal giving their Party's stand on the war. As members of the Canadian government it was inappropriate for them to attack us, and in another time and place this would have been tantamount to treason.

Canadians Stand With You
By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values.

Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral.

In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us. (And yet the majority of Canadains supported Chretien's decision)

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.

At the same time there was an interesting demonstration in Calgary, in what was referred to as supporting the Anglosphere (English speaking) in War. Obviously the Canadian Alliance was still very much English Canada focused.

Calgarians show support for war effort
Ben Li
University of Calgary Gauntlet
News Editor
April 03, 2003

Close to 1,000 Calgarians rallied at the U of C in support of ongoing military action in Iraq on Sun., Mar. 30. Speakers and participants, including veterans and families of armed forces personnel in the war, demanded that Prime Minister Jean Chretien support the Anglosphere nations (the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Australia).

"My wife and I were listening to commentators, not too long before the Iraq event began, and the words that were being spouted were about how everyone in Canada was against the war," said MP for Wild Rose Myron Thompson, whose 29-year-old son is serving with U.S. forces in Kuwait. "We looked at each other with tears in our eyes, wondering 'are we in this alone?' Looking at the audience today, we know now we are not alone."

As the audience proudly waved hundreds of Canadian, U.S., U.K., and Australian flags during his speech, the Canadian Alliance member criticized Chretien for letting Canada continue to enjoy its liberty without contributing to its preservation. "I have no animosity toward those who object to the war," said Thompson. "Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, just give a moment of thanks to the hundreds of thousands of our forefathers who gave themselves so we can live in a world where we can do this."

Over 50 volunteers were on hand at the event entitled I Am Canadian, I Am A Friend of the U.S., organized by Calgary lawyer and U of C Commerce graduate Ezra Levant.

Volunteer Brent Waddell was disappointed with the lack of students at the rally, who numbered a couple dozen. "The students should not be against the war in Iraq," he said. "They're for world peace, but before we get there, we must get rid of the world's dictators."

Calgary Southeast MP Jason Kenney echoed his Canadian Alliance party's view that Canada should do more to support its Anglosphere allies."

In the last couple of weeks, for the first time I was not proud to be a Canadian... not proud of what Jean Chretien did to undo 130 years of Canadian history (he forgot about Vietnam obviously) ," he said. "Jean Chretien, has no right to undermine the history, the tradition of our country. We have to let our allies know that even though Ottawa doesn't support them, we as citizens do.

"Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance MP for Medicine Hat also opposed Chretien."I want the world to know that Jean Chretien does not speak for me," he said. "Jean Chretien's silence in the face of anti-American sentiment is unforgivable. Canada and the U.S. have a blood bond in history through wars in Europe and Korea. We are more than mere allies."

Volunteer and participant Dallas Rowley also believed that Canada should have more support for its nearest neighbour. "We're an independent nation, we make up or own minds about the war, but we also rely on the U.S. for economics and trade just as they rely on us for resources," he said.U of C professor Ted Morton said the positive relationship between Canada and the U.S. comes from a shared interest in peace, but that could be in jeopardy."

I learned in Israel that if you're not willing and able to defend your country, that your country won't be yours for very long," he said. "In the affluence of peace in North America, we've forgotten that."

Morton also believes in the Canadian sovereignty not to support the war."Canada has the right to make its own decision, but has Canada made the right decision?" he asked. "It has not."

During the speeches, some three dozen individuals who opposed the war in Iraq arrived outside of MacEwan Hall. One off-campus participant who opposed the war was removed by Campus Security after arguing with attendees. Another individual who attempted to remove an anti-war sign from a different opponent to war was restrained.

Though Harper and his gang, after realizing that most Canadians did not share their views, tried to deny ever having them, it's pretty clear where they stood.

Michael Ignatieff was teaching at Harvard at the time, and also supported the Iraq War, though he says that Canada was right to stay out of it. Like many living in the U.S. at the time, he believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He was also quieted by the Patriot Act, so even if he did oppose it at the time, he could never have said so.

For him though, it was not about ideology, but was more personal. He had spent time in Kurdistan after the genocide, and saw the devastation perpetrated by Sadam, knowing he had to be removed. He has since admitted that this War was not the way to go, which was much better than simply lying.