I'm just gonna throw a few logs on this here fire, then back out and let you all roast you chestnuts on it.
Canada
was convinced by the case presented to her by the US/UK intelligence. Canada
is prepared to enter the conflict on the side of it's allies. But, Canada stated from the begining that they needed a UN resolution to lend political crecidence to the affair. You see, Canada has a substancial reputation to uphold as the world's peacemaker. In any conflict in the world, any international debate, or discussion, Canada is seen as the "good guys". And that let's them do a lot of good. It gives them a political clout that belies their armed might. A canadian negotiator can go anywhere in the world and be listened too. Joining this assault without UN backing would put decades of work at risk.
And as for showing that evidence, that rock solid case to everyone else ... well France and Germany already found bugs in their UN offices. Do you really think that the US/UK is gonna give up their sources? Most of the evidence that makes up that case would have make those sources stand out like sore thumbs. Or like they had bullseyes painted on their foreheads.
And as for the good that case would have done .... a rock solid case was presented to the UN Secretary for investigation. Allegations, testimony, and evidence that Saddam and his boys were comitting atrocities. The case was flatly refused. Annan said that there was no point in reading it, since it would be blocked before it got anywhere.
But you want facts? You want cases? No prob. I hope you've lots of time for reading.
The Guardian
INDICT
