I'll throw my 2 cents in for some of the things edsinger has brought up. Different perspectives are always nice.
The Canadian refusal for missile defence was nothing more than bad timing on the part of the US government. We have a minority government at the
moment and this was one of the few issues that would have toppled the government. When George came up here to chat and make nice, this was explained
to him. Our government was assured that he would not mention the topic, because it was fully understood that, at this point in time, our government
could not push it through because of it's precarious position.
So what happens? George comes up and makes a speech, televised across Canada, and mentions the dirty words, thus making headline news. Now all of a
sudden, BMD is first and foremost in the minds of Canadians and front page news across the country.
Now Paul Martin is in a tough position; sign on and lose the post he's schemed for so long to acheive or say no, and keep it. He went for
self-preservation, as most politicians do.
If the US had just been patient and waited for a liberal majority government, I have no doubt we would have signed on. Our government would have
counted on the fact that they had 4 years to distract us with something else before election time.
The Iraq war
When we were approached about joining the coalition, Chretien asked if he could see this 'proof' that the US and the UK were talking about. Does
that not seem reasonable and responsible to you? After all, joining a war because someone 'says' there is WMD is slightly irresponsible.
The US refused to show us the proof, so we passed on the opportunity.
To quote Chretien at the time: A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's
because it's proven.
What it comes down to is that the US government was unwilling to show us the intelligence that led to this.
[edit on 27-8-2005 by Duzey]