Bush and Kerry hardly differed on key questions, whether the exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage or US foreign policy. Neither offered any exit strategy from Iraq, nor anything besides unequivocal support for Israel's brutal and expansionist policies. Kerry even promised to increase US military spending (already US$400 billion a year, half of all worldwide military expenditures) and to "kill the terrorists" himself if need be.
But Kerry would have done it with international support. That was the main difference between the two candidates. Where Bush is a "go it alone" kind of guy, pissing off the European heads of states who think he should learn some manners, Kerry would have written them a love poem. He would, one suspects, have managed to convince them to participate in America's various military capers. He might have convinced more nations to share in the financial burden (and benefits) of occupying weak, defenseless countries that have (preferably) scads of oil and the nerve to refuse to submit to American hegemony.
etc
http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/current/BushedAllForBest.htm
[i guess this person is part of the "things-have-to-get-worse-before-they-get-better" crowd. if people like mel hurtig & david orchard can't fan the flames of canadian 'nationalism', george bush sure can! i bet if kerry were president, chretien would have surely sent our boys & girls to iraq - NSay]
Stumble It!
To say that Kerry would have gone into Iraq is false, as he stated quite clearly in the debate that Bush was gravely wrong to go there. In fact, Kerry left no doubt that he would have continued to go after Bin-Laden and Al-Quaida in Afghanistan, which under Bush received unanimous international support.
Your assertion that if Kerry were president Chretien would have sent troops to Iraq is plainly wrong. The reason why he didn't send troops to Iraq wasn't because Bush was president; it was because the US administration didn't make its case before the UN and get international consensus that Iraq presented a threat outside of Iraq and certainly not to the US.
Your contention that Kerry would have sought international support to occupy oil producing countries is also a misread of the man, as Kerry is more of a diplomat and Bush is not (Bush had never even had a passport before he became president so how could he know about international relations). I believe when Kerry said he would seek international support he also meant that he would respect international opinion, as he indicated during the debate that he would rebuild the international relations Bush destroyed.
Kerry largely lost the election because he tried to be cute and didn't simply hold Bush to account for his lies to the American people. He may have made some political blunders, but he is at heart an honest man and one who could be trusted with the military might of the US to not use it for world domination.
Now, for anyone in or near Ottawa, when Bush comes to give his speech to the House of Commons everyone get big signs with huge letters that spell out liar and hold them up on his motorcade route.
I agree somewhat with both of the previous articles, both have good points. While Kerry said it was a mistake to go into Iraq (even though he voted for it), it may make a difference in whether they invade other countries. That we could become involved if they did it differently is also complicated. We have to remember the propaganda machine that started up in the former Yugoslavia, Canada was involved there under NATO and that also did not have UN support, in fact the majority of the world did not support us, something rarely discussed these days.
There is considerable evidence that we didn't become involved in Iraq simply because of the power the Power Corporation and Paul Desmarais and pals wield in the country. They own the french oil company ...damn, what is it called 'Elfina' (something like that). This company, like the french oil industry in general, had contracts with Iraq which are now scuppered. This company has pretty much put in place every Prime Minister since Trudeau, liberal OR conservative. So I don't think Canada can claim any moral high ground (especially since the support we did give them was far greater than most of the countries who supported the war)
Actually, it makes a lot of difference to argue what would have happened. Kerry, along with all other people in the house were misled by Bush's lies and I believe he said that if he had accurate information he would not have voted to go into Iraq, which essentially is the unfounded basis of Bush's specious flip-flop argument. Much of Kerry's policies about Iraq during the campaign had to do with the necessity of cleaning up Bush's mess in Iraq and the fact that it would have been irresponsible to simply pull US soldiers out.
Canada may not have gone into Yugoslavia with UN support but NATO still consists of international support (as opposed to the unilateral action in Iraq). As well, it certainly was not clearly an action intended to support commercial interests as Iraq was unless you can show me what company is gaining from invading Yugoslavia (and you can forget about military contractors who really wouldn't have made that much given the type of operation it was).
Quite frankly, your assertion that Canadian politics is controlled by a French oil company is ridiculous.