Either the Hans Island issue is a "Wag the Dog" public attention stunt (look how strong our goverment is), or Canadian politicians are really meaning what they are saying - ex. Stockwell Day from the opposition saying:
Quote:
The nation of Denmark has laid claim to Canadian territory. Its military, from its warship, hoisted its flag on our Arctic territory without permission, without warning, and without any fear of being stopped.
|
Now ofcourse the issue about Hans Island is amusing to me, since its a perfect example on how the same issue can be looked at from different point of views, and it just adds to the story that in this issue its Canada who is the "big", "aggressive" part... who would have tought that Canada would be driven by things like greed and power in international issues - I´m guessing everyone else, but a few canadians ;-))
So as Jesus said "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone" ;-)))
To answer your Iraq question, then I hope there were more than 1 reason why military action was required - you do not go to war over 1.3 mile of rock in the arctic without having more than the rock to fight for. Also like every other war in history, then objectives are changed depending on how the war is going... what might have been good reasons for invading 1½ years ago, have probably been modified/replaced by other good reasons for staying today.