Phil,
I think you should direct your anger towards " the Canadian gov't", not the residents of Canada...
and to say "shove it up your ass"...
come on bud, I know you have more class than that...
I think you should direct your anger towards " the Canadian gov't", not the residents of Canada...
and to say "shove it up your ass"...
come on bud, I know you have more class than that...
but I do agree with you Phil, actually I am very shocked that Jean Chretien has not backed up the US...hell if a country with a larger army than ours attacked Canada, who would help? the UN?
AHAHAHAH
the UN is a piece of chit.....
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
AHAHAHAH
the UN is a piece of chit.....
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
I did say "and of course when I say "Canada" I dont mean every last citizen, I mean your elected government officials."
But I mean the shove it up your ass comment, you know, in as nice and neighbourly of a way as I possibly can.
We are going to go to war. We are going to clean up the Middle East, and in time I believe the rest of the world will give us a big round of after-the-fact applause.
And you know what? If Canada or France or Germany gets attacked 6 months from now, despite of the big fawk you we got from them, the United States would still be first in line to offer support. We would still be first in line to send troops to battle. And we would be the first ones in line to help in any rebuilding effort necessary.
You know what, I am pretty god damned proud to be an American.
But I mean the shove it up your ass comment, you know, in as nice and neighbourly of a way as I possibly can.
We are going to go to war. We are going to clean up the Middle East, and in time I believe the rest of the world will give us a big round of after-the-fact applause.
And you know what? If Canada or France or Germany gets attacked 6 months from now, despite of the big fawk you we got from them, the United States would still be first in line to offer support. We would still be first in line to send troops to battle. And we would be the first ones in line to help in any rebuilding effort necessary.
You know what, I am pretty god damned proud to be an American.
phil, i dont know you and you probably are a very nice person
You know what, I am pretty god damned proud to be an American.the United States would still be first in line to offer support. We would still be first in line to send troops to battle. And we would be the first ones in line to help in any rebuilding effort necessary.
Will you make this decisison yourself???
Of course not and....i'm not Jean Chretien but we both are canadian.
Hates generates hates.
Focus your "kinking ass" philosophy on Saddam and Laden but not on us or on the people of Irak.
Have some work to do, good night gentlemen.
You know what, I am pretty god damned proud to be an American.the United States would still be first in line to offer support. We would still be first in line to send troops to battle. And we would be the first ones in line to help in any rebuilding effort necessary.
Will you make this decisison yourself???
Of course not and....i'm not Jean Chretien but we both are canadian.
Hates generates hates.
Focus your "kinking ass" philosophy on Saddam and Laden but not on us or on the people of Irak.
Have some work to do, good night gentlemen.
Re: S-Love
Re: S-Love
Should have been "He" doesn't surprise.
Nothing against the Canadian citizens themselves.
Re: S-Love
Senor Capper said:
Should have been "He" doesn't surprise.
Nothing against the Canadian citizens themselves.
Can someone explain the upside for Canada in not backing the U.S. here? I can understand the French, but this makes no sense to me. Do you think it has alot to do with the friendly fire tragedy last year and America's lack of an appropriate response to it? Just trying to get the Canadien's thoughts because
"Americans are benevolently ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well informed about the United States."
-J. Bartlett Brebner
"Americans are benevolently ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well informed about the United States."
-J. Bartlett Brebner
Bobby,
http://thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/Content...696&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
I really can't answer your question since I don't know the answer, it just doesn't make any sense....
Sorry we disappointed you....
http://thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/Content...696&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
I really can't answer your question since I don't know the answer, it just doesn't make any sense....
Sorry we disappointed you....
Bobby,
I think the reason why Canadians are not getting involved in this war is because they think they are immune from terrorist attacks.Their feeling is if we stay neutral then there should be no reason for the terrorists to bother with us. Some of them think, along with some worldwide opinion, that we deserved what happen to us on 9/11.
I think the reason why Canadians are not getting involved in this war is because they think they are immune from terrorist attacks.Their feeling is if we stay neutral then there should be no reason for the terrorists to bother with us. Some of them think, along with some worldwide opinion, that we deserved what happen to us on 9/11.
interesting letter i found from an online newspaper:
Dear Editor,
This is an open letter to Prime Minister Chretien.
There are many strong reasons that Canada should not support the United State's attack on Iraq. I wish to deal with two.
Supporting the U.S. in such an attack would mean supporting the goals and supporting the methods. It also means we share responsibility for the outcome of such an attack, including predictable human, economic and environmental devastation.
The first reason Canada should not act in alliance with the U.S. in attacking Iraq is that the U.S. is acting outside international law.
Much is being made of the fact that finally U.S. President George Bush allowed his arm to be twisted into taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council. Upon doing this, the U.S. proceeded to bribe or threaten all the states it needed to pass the resolution it wanted.
How is it possible that world leaders are prepared to overlook, not only abuse of the process, but flagrant statements that whatever the Security Council says, the U.S. will attack Iraq anyway. This is lawless behavior which we would condemn in any other leaders.
The Bush administration clearly has its own timetable for the killing and is shocking, even though the flouting of international law is habitual to the Bush administration. To acquiesce is to consent to a major departure from international law and human rights in this new millennium.
The second reason we should steer clear of cooperating with the Bush administration in attacking Iraq is that Bush has threatened the possible use of nuclear weapons in this war.
If Iraqi forces use chemical or biological weapons (it is unclear that they have them), Bush may use nuclear weapons in retaliation. Use of any of these means is abominable, immoral and illegal. No matter what Iraqi forces do, it would be wrong to use a nuclear bomb. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people would die terrible deaths. To respond to a gross moral wrong by Iraqi forces with an even more heinous moral wrong cannot be tolerated or encouraged by Canadian support.
Even to threaten to use nuclear weapons is illegal. As friends of the U.S. and committed to law and democratic values, we must call any such world leader to account.
The U.S. killed 3,000 people in its abduction of Manuel Noriega, the ostensible reason for the invasion of Panama in 1989.
It killed over 3,000 people in its attempt to arrest Osama bin Laden, its ostensible reason for the invasion of Afghanistan last year. If it uses nuclear bombs on Baghdad, 300,000 to three million could die.
Cooperation in this attack is proposed to us as part of the war against terrorism. It is hard to imagine a more effective way of encouraging terrorism. Canadians should not cooperate in a war that is fundamentally wrong, should not ally our nation with one that flouts international law in the gravest of ways and should not act to increase the risk of inflaming terrorism.
________________________________________________
again, just a letter and their views are their own.
Dear Editor,
This is an open letter to Prime Minister Chretien.
There are many strong reasons that Canada should not support the United State's attack on Iraq. I wish to deal with two.
Supporting the U.S. in such an attack would mean supporting the goals and supporting the methods. It also means we share responsibility for the outcome of such an attack, including predictable human, economic and environmental devastation.
The first reason Canada should not act in alliance with the U.S. in attacking Iraq is that the U.S. is acting outside international law.
Much is being made of the fact that finally U.S. President George Bush allowed his arm to be twisted into taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council. Upon doing this, the U.S. proceeded to bribe or threaten all the states it needed to pass the resolution it wanted.
How is it possible that world leaders are prepared to overlook, not only abuse of the process, but flagrant statements that whatever the Security Council says, the U.S. will attack Iraq anyway. This is lawless behavior which we would condemn in any other leaders.
The Bush administration clearly has its own timetable for the killing and is shocking, even though the flouting of international law is habitual to the Bush administration. To acquiesce is to consent to a major departure from international law and human rights in this new millennium.
The second reason we should steer clear of cooperating with the Bush administration in attacking Iraq is that Bush has threatened the possible use of nuclear weapons in this war.
If Iraqi forces use chemical or biological weapons (it is unclear that they have them), Bush may use nuclear weapons in retaliation. Use of any of these means is abominable, immoral and illegal. No matter what Iraqi forces do, it would be wrong to use a nuclear bomb. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people would die terrible deaths. To respond to a gross moral wrong by Iraqi forces with an even more heinous moral wrong cannot be tolerated or encouraged by Canadian support.
Even to threaten to use nuclear weapons is illegal. As friends of the U.S. and committed to law and democratic values, we must call any such world leader to account.
The U.S. killed 3,000 people in its abduction of Manuel Noriega, the ostensible reason for the invasion of Panama in 1989.
It killed over 3,000 people in its attempt to arrest Osama bin Laden, its ostensible reason for the invasion of Afghanistan last year. If it uses nuclear bombs on Baghdad, 300,000 to three million could die.
Cooperation in this attack is proposed to us as part of the war against terrorism. It is hard to imagine a more effective way of encouraging terrorism. Canadians should not cooperate in a war that is fundamentally wrong, should not ally our nation with one that flouts international law in the gravest of ways and should not act to increase the risk of inflaming terrorism.
________________________________________________
again, just a letter and their views are their own.
Thx for the link. It just doesn't make sense to me. If he actually is a man of principles and doesn't support the war and is representing his citizens, then good for him. This can only be bad for future Canadian-US political relations. Maybe more trade restrictions. In a way, proud of him for having his own thoughts, but I don't think that it benefits Canada in any way.
Hopefully, I can see a movie about Chicago not be filmed in Toronto now .
Hopefully, I can see a movie about Chicago not be filmed in Toronto now
.again, just a view:
from the Centre for Research on Globalisation from montreal, quebec :
U.S. Action Dangerous and Unnecessary Under Present Circumstances :
"Canada absolutely must not support the U.S. in what is likely to be one of the major blunders in world history," Paul Hellyer warned today. "Instead, our country must take a clear stand against any apparently-arbitrary power play on the part of our southern neighbours."
The Leader of the Canadian Action Party and former Liberal cabinet minister was reacting to the U.S. request for Canadian support for, and possible participation in, a U.S. invasion of Iraq - a position that could have negative consequences for Canadians.
"Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien says Canada will not support a U.S. attack without 'proof" that a threat exists, but what 'proof" would be convincing?" Mr. Hellyer asked. "The reliability of U.S. intelligence is suspect - as we have learned since last September 11th.
"This is also the lesson Canadians learned when we cancelled the Avro Arrow interceptor program on the basis of a wildly exaggerated U.S. Air Force intelligence assessment of Soviet missile capability," the former Defence Minister suggested. "It's the same old trick of the Pentagon producing 'evidence' to support U.S. policy rather than basing U.S. policy on solid evidence.
Canadians should also think about the fact that the Pentagon has opened an Office of Disinformation, for the precise purpose of misleading civilian populations during these precarious times," Mr. Hellyer noted. "If the U.S. does actually have 'proof' that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction exist it must know where these weapons are - in which case a few super-bombs could destroy those facilities without the necessity of a war that would produce thousands of military and civilian casualties," the CAP leader argued.
"It seems more than obvious that if U.S. leaders are sincerely concerned about the spread of weapons of mass destruction, they would not embark on a misadventure that will guarantee an unprecedented explosion of hate and violence," Mr. Hellyer said. "Such an explosion has the potential of spiraling out of control with genuinely frightening results," he stated, "because the Arab League has already warned the U.S. that an attack on Iraq would be considered an attack on all Arab countries, and has predicted that the consequences would be nothing less than a 'hell' in the Middle East.
"Based on my past experience in these matters, I know it cannot be stated too strongly or too often that Canada must not condone or endorse, let alone commit Canadians troops to participate in, a war based on policy gone made," Mr. Hellyer concluded. "There is simply too much at stake."
from the Centre for Research on Globalisation from montreal, quebec :
U.S. Action Dangerous and Unnecessary Under Present Circumstances :
"Canada absolutely must not support the U.S. in what is likely to be one of the major blunders in world history," Paul Hellyer warned today. "Instead, our country must take a clear stand against any apparently-arbitrary power play on the part of our southern neighbours."
The Leader of the Canadian Action Party and former Liberal cabinet minister was reacting to the U.S. request for Canadian support for, and possible participation in, a U.S. invasion of Iraq - a position that could have negative consequences for Canadians.
"Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien says Canada will not support a U.S. attack without 'proof" that a threat exists, but what 'proof" would be convincing?" Mr. Hellyer asked. "The reliability of U.S. intelligence is suspect - as we have learned since last September 11th.
"This is also the lesson Canadians learned when we cancelled the Avro Arrow interceptor program on the basis of a wildly exaggerated U.S. Air Force intelligence assessment of Soviet missile capability," the former Defence Minister suggested. "It's the same old trick of the Pentagon producing 'evidence' to support U.S. policy rather than basing U.S. policy on solid evidence.
Canadians should also think about the fact that the Pentagon has opened an Office of Disinformation, for the precise purpose of misleading civilian populations during these precarious times," Mr. Hellyer noted. "If the U.S. does actually have 'proof' that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction exist it must know where these weapons are - in which case a few super-bombs could destroy those facilities without the necessity of a war that would produce thousands of military and civilian casualties," the CAP leader argued.
"It seems more than obvious that if U.S. leaders are sincerely concerned about the spread of weapons of mass destruction, they would not embark on a misadventure that will guarantee an unprecedented explosion of hate and violence," Mr. Hellyer said. "Such an explosion has the potential of spiraling out of control with genuinely frightening results," he stated, "because the Arab League has already warned the U.S. that an attack on Iraq would be considered an attack on all Arab countries, and has predicted that the consequences would be nothing less than a 'hell' in the Middle East.
"Based on my past experience in these matters, I know it cannot be stated too strongly or too often that Canada must not condone or endorse, let alone commit Canadians troops to participate in, a war based on policy gone made," Mr. Hellyer concluded. "There is simply too much at stake."
Lets not get to mad at our friends from Canada. With only 15% of the world on our side. I guess you cant blame them for joining the majority.
I have heard that the US now have more countries supporting this war than Bush Sr.had during the Gulf War & Clinton had during his attacks on Kosovo & iraq.
good post Frogy sums up most of the my thoughts when I read these posts.
Acehistr8 maybe you should read or study some history, tell me when Canada joined WW2, and what small battles and how many troops did they commit to the cause. As for trade the US congress is doing their best to pass tariffs and duties, Softwood lumber and even wheat. not to worry as with most trade restrictions this hurts the country that applies them even more than the other nations. I would hope you would want to buy more things from Canada such as oil/natural gas than less, or do you want to send more money to Saudia Arabia. that will help terrorism,.....sure......who do you think really funded OBL and the Taliban...did you forget,
does not matter Canada ships 85% of all exports to the US this amount should come down, it is never good to be relaint on one economy (even a strong one).
As for JC our Prime Minister he is a good politicean, he looks at the poll results. He did send Cdn. troops so more US troops can be free to go to Iraq and other duties. a good solution to provide some support.
As for Turkey they have voted down a resolution to allow an attack from their soil, wow is that support.
Not sure I aggree with the PM decission, I do not think Iraq is a great threat but any chance to get rid of a corrupt dictator is not bad, also many thousands or Iraq children have died because of the sanctions so that cannot be the solution.
still and always will be a proud Canadian.
thanks
selkirk
Acehistr8 maybe you should read or study some history, tell me when Canada joined WW2, and what small battles and how many troops did they commit to the cause. As for trade the US congress is doing their best to pass tariffs and duties, Softwood lumber and even wheat. not to worry as with most trade restrictions this hurts the country that applies them even more than the other nations. I would hope you would want to buy more things from Canada such as oil/natural gas than less, or do you want to send more money to Saudia Arabia. that will help terrorism,.....sure......who do you think really funded OBL and the Taliban...did you forget,
does not matter Canada ships 85% of all exports to the US this amount should come down, it is never good to be relaint on one economy (even a strong one).
As for JC our Prime Minister he is a good politicean, he looks at the poll results. He did send Cdn. troops so more US troops can be free to go to Iraq and other duties. a good solution to provide some support.
As for Turkey they have voted down a resolution to allow an attack from their soil, wow is that support.
Not sure I aggree with the PM decission, I do not think Iraq is a great threat but any chance to get rid of a corrupt dictator is not bad, also many thousands or Iraq children have died because of the sanctions so that cannot be the solution.
still and always will be a proud Canadian.
thanks
selkirk
