That?s the right thing to do, congrats Canadians.
My president has spoken against the war the way it is presented as well.
At this same time Tony Blair cabinet is falling apart there in good old UK.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12270878,00.html
COOK SPEECH IN FULL
Former Foreign Secretary was the first casualty of war when he announced his resignation from the Cabinet.
But he received a standing ovation from MPs when he set out his reasons for resigning.
Here are edited extracts of his speech:
War vote
"I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
Neither the international community nor the British public are persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this action in Iraq.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who vote against military action now. It is for that reason and that reason alone that with a heavy heart I have resigned from the Government.
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations which led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition," he said.
The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.
Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
The international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The Security Council is in stalemate.
Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
French 'not to blame'
We delude ourselves if we think the degree of international hostility (to military action) is all the result of President (Jacques) Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without the agreement of any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner -not Nato, not the EU, and now not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse."
Mr Cook dismissed comparisons of the Iraq crisis with Kosovo, stressing that Britain then had the backing of Nato, the European Union and seven of Yugoslavia's neighbours in taking action to end an "urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis".
"It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement," he said.
"Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq."
Contradiction
He continued: "Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate this invasion.
"We cannot base a military strategy of the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly-understood sense of the term; namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it's had them since the 1980s, when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that to take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there 20 years and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks has been the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected we would not now be about to commit British troops.