Bush and Martin: sealing the deal

So President Bush has been and gone, and now Canada is getting in deeper.

Check out NOW Magazine's article, 'To send or not to send,' (December 9-16, 2004).

Prime Minister Martin wants Canada to financially support and supervise Iraqi elections, while U.S. troops remain in Iraq and are backing certain candidates. So much for democracy.

Remember that pesky oil issue, which U.S. government and media, alike, deny as being a reason for attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq? Tony Clarke of the Polaris Institue comments in NOW:

"The fact that we are the number-one foreign oil supplier to the U.S. now, having surpassed Saudi Arabia, raises serious questions as to our role in fuelling the military machine of the United States."

Other Questions

1) Who is America to supervise democratic development in Iraq? Free enterprise, maybe, but fair elections? (See 'Questions about U.S. election.')

2) Why is there no discussion about how unreliable the U.S.' own balloting system is - ranked, I believe, even lower than Argentina and many other countries. (See 'Voting issues, no news coverage.')

3) What if U.S. companies start supplying Iraq's electoral equipment and systems? The implications of this go far beyond war profiteering and other economic gains.


To paraphrase Stephen Streeter's comment in NOW Magazine:
we are backing the U.S.'s actions - not the United Nations' - and this sets a very dangerous precedent.