# Typical Lack of Support from Our "Friends" in Ottawa



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Check out Paul Martin's remarks at the end of the following article that appreared in the Winnipeg Sun.

Wed, September 22, 2004 

*Bush Gives Hell to UN*
Slams Members Who Fail to Fight 'Murderers'

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, Ottawa Bureau
NEW YORK -- U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday scolded the United Nations for failing to join his crackdown on "murderers." A tough-talking Bush told the 84 world leaders gathered here in New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly's 59th session to stop "looking away." 
"All civilized nations are in this struggle together and all must fight the murderers," he said, warning of an escalation in attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan leading up to those countries' general elections. 
Bush used his 15-minute address to the UN to criticize advocates of pulling out of Iraq. 
*"The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail," Bush said. * "The advance of freedom always carries a cost paid by the bravest among us." 
Bush called on the UN to sharpen its teeth and start backing up its ideals with muscle when the rule of law is broken. 
"The commitments that we make must have meaning," Bush said. 
"When we say serious consequences, for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences." 
*Bush addressed the international community after sustaining veiled criticism by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. * 
ABUSE OF PRISONERS 
Annan chastised those leaders who preach the rule of law but readily break it, pointing to the abuse of prisoners by the U.S. military as a clear example. 
"At times even the necessary fight against terrorism is allowed to encroach unnecessarily on civil liberties," Annan said. 
"Those invoking it do not always practise what they preach. Those who seek to bestow legitimacy, must themselves embody it." 
*Prime Minister Paul Martin refused to take sides in the debate on American actions in Iraq. 
"I'm not going to look back," the PM said yesterday. 
"What is required is international law that is applicable to an evolving situation. As far as we're concerned, what's important now is that we look forward."  *


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

i understand wanting to look forward (btw,so how about some canadian troops for iraq? hell they could help guard the border with syria and iran and that would be good enough for me.) but at the same time, pres. bush laid out an incredible vision at the UN on Tuesday.  For a PM who promised to restore warmer relations with Washington, not taking Bush's side or even supporting him on this is kind of senseless.

I hope PM Martin has got some good ideas for how to improve relations with the US.  We could use some more support, especially from Canada.  We share so many aspects in our view of the world, our leadership just has a different style than in the past, the substance is similar, but a lot better.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> i understand wanting to look forward (btw,so how about some canadian troops for iraq? hell they could help guard the border with syria and iran and that would be good enough for me.) but at the same time, pres. bush laid out an incredible vision at the UN on Tuesday.  For a PM who promised to restore warmer relations with Washington, not taking Bush's side or even supporting him on this is kind of senseless.
> 
> I hope PM Martin has got some good ideas for how to improve relations with the US.  We could use some more support, especially from Canada.  We share so many aspects in our view of the world, our leadership just has a different style than in the past, the substance is similar, but a lot better.



The Canadian military is so weak, they probably could not come up with enough troops for a deployment in Iraq even if they wanted to, which they do not. If they could scrape up the troops, how would they get to Iraq? Air Canada? As with Afghanistan, we would have to transport them. The Canadians have almost no military. The Liberal governments have killed what little capability they did possess. The entire Canadian Navy consists of 4 old destroyers and 12 frigates. Pathetic. http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp The Canadians shelter under America's defensive capabilities and then shamelessly snipe at our foreign policy.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

> Prime Minister Paul Martin refused to take sides in the debate on American actions in Iraq.
> "I'm not going to look back," the PM said yesterday.
> "What is required is international law that is applicable to an evolving situation. As far as we're concerned, what's important now is that we look forward."



You have a problem with his statement because he didn't want to get invovled in the mud slinging between Bush and Anan? Saying drop it and move on is a bad thing? Sheesh, tough crowd. 

As for troops in Iraq, Canada has them there, and all over the world. Canada has neither the means or the man power to do more at this time, which I'm sure you're all aware of. The majority of Canada's efforts in the WOT are in Afghanistan.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

i think perhaps a more constructive query would be: "how does canada restore its military? does it transform into a lighter, more specific mission oriented force?  should it combine defense duties with the USA, say so that canada would no longer need an air force or navy (a coast guard definitely) but just keep its army (but a reconstructed and modern force inclined to peacekeeping, peacemaking and counterterrorism?)

i want to see canada and the US come closer together, and i think it all begins with the reality that canada can fully trust on the US to defend it.  we're brother nations.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> You have a problem with his statement because he didn't want to get invovled in the mud slinging between Bush and Anan? Saying drop it and move on is a bad thing? Sheesh, tough crowd.
> 
> As for troops in Iraq, Canada has them there, and all over the world. Canada has neither the means or the man power to do more at this time, which I'm sure you're all aware of. The majority of Canada's efforts in the WOT are in Afghanistan.



Yes, I have a problem with that. And it was not mere "mud slinging." Annan told the BBC that the US invasion of Iraq was "illegal." Then he continued his criticism in his speech at the UN. And as usual, we got no support from the Canadian government. Other countries fighting the War on Islamic Terror, such as Australia, UK, Poland, did criticize Annan's remark to the BBC. Not Canada though. Canada is the France of the Western Hemisphere.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Yes, I have a problem with that. And it was not mere "mud slinging." Annan told the BBC that the US invasion of Iraq was "illegal." Then he continued his criticism in his speech at the UN. And as usual, we got no support from the Canadian government. Other countries fighting the War on Islamic Terror, such as Australia, UK, Poland, did criticize Annan's remark to the BBC. Not Canada though. Canada is the France of the Western Hemisphere.



I think he chose a very diplomatic approach, and the future is what's important not the UN's (Anan's) insistance that the war was illeagal. Persaonlly I don't think that's important anymore either, but certain people continue to constantly rehash old shit. Like he said "I don't want to look back", get over it, what's done is done.

How you consider Canada to be like France is beyond me, but you have the right to your opinon, bash away.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> i think perhaps a more constructive query would be: "how does canada restore its military? does it transform into a lighter, more specific mission oriented force?  should it combine defense duties with the USA, say so that canada would no longer need an air force or navy (a coast guard definitely) but just keep its army (but a reconstructed and modern force inclined to peacekeeping, peacemaking and counterterrorism?)
> 
> i want to see canada and the US come closer together, and i think it all begins with the reality that canada can fully trust on the US to defend it.  we're brother nations.



You have a good point, but it's also important to note we will never have the resources to build the military and defense systems comparable to the US. Combining duties would probably be out of the question due to lack of investment and funds. Canada has been more mission oriented focusing on peacekeeping/making for quite sometime, but in doing this other areas have been badly neglected. Serious overhaul is needed, and most Canadians are waiting for answers to the same questions you posed above.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

well, what about this?

The US and Canada combine resources for Homeland Security and Homeland Defense.  The Canadian Air Force is disbanded, as the USAF will now take up their duties.  The Canadian Navy is disbanded, ditto for the US Navy taking up their duties.  The Canadian Army is rebuilt from the ground up to fufill mission requirements for peacekeeping and counterterrorism operations with an eye on fast deployments via the USAF/USN.  Canada's PM and America's president jointly decide to deploy forces to say, Darfur, with the blessing of NATO or the UNSC.

Is this anyway possible?  How much extra would it cost for the US to take up homeland defense for Canada as well?  What are the pros/cons in everyone's humble opinion?


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> ...not the UN's (Anan's) insistance that the war was illeagal. Persaonlly I don't think that's important anymore either, but certain people continue to constantly rehash old shit.



Are you sure about that? A major world "leader," the Secretary General of the UN, says the war was "illegal" and that is not important? America is trying to build the Coalition in Iraq. Annan's statement makes that harder and gives countries that have not contributed to the Iraq military effort, such as Canada and France, a place to hide.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that? A major world "leader," the Secretary General of the UN, says the war was "illegal" and that is not important?



Unless he has something new to add, no. 



> Annan's statement makes that harder and gives countries that have not contributed to the Iraq military effort, such as Canada ..



Are you sure about that? Canada has been invovled from the beginning. Maybe not in the "smokem out,  shootem up" way YOU would prefer, but they are there, and have been there from the start.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

i don't think they're anywhere as bad as the french..

i mean the canadians have never decieved us, lied to us or undermined us... at least not with the intention of replacing us as world leader or countering our efforts.

everyone's allowed to have disagreements.

the french declared "cold war" with their actions.

huge difference.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> well, what about this?
> 
> The US and Canada combine resources for Homeland Security and Homeland Defense.  The Canadian Air Force is disbanded, as the USAF will now take up their duties.  The Canadian Navy is disbanded, ditto for the US Navy taking up their duties.  The Canadian Army is rebuilt from the ground up to fufill mission requirements for peacekeeping and counterterrorism operations with an eye on fast deployments via the USAF/USN.  Canada's PM and America's president jointly decide to deploy forces to say, Darfur, with the blessing of NATO or the UNSC.
> 
> Is this anyway possible?  How much extra would it cost for the US to take up homeland defense for Canada as well?  What are the pros/cons in everyone's humble opinion?



NATO, I think your ideas on this are logical, but they are not likely to happen anytime soon with the anti-American Liberal government that exists in Ottawa. Please Google "Canadian anti-Americanism" and read some of the articles. To describe Canada as the France of the Western Hemisphere is only a small, if any, exaggeration.

PS. Except for a few aging F18s, America already handles Canadian Air Defense. Supposedly we have a joint American-Canadian Air Defense Command (NORAD) headquartered in Colorado.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Unless he has something new to add, no.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? *Canada has been invovled from the beginning*. Maybe not in the "smokem out,  shootem up" way YOU would prefer, but they are there, and have been there from the start.



Please elaborate.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

they did contribute troops to enduring freedom (remember the canadian soldiers that were killed by accident by an american bomber?)  matter of fact, they saw combat i believe.  they just didn't agree with us on iraq.  i believe in the next crisis, they will be by our side this time.

my faith in canada i suppose.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

As far as I know, President Bush is the only recent sitting President that has refused to visit Canada. This is not because Canadian foreign policy is supportive of America.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/12/bushcda_030412


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I think he chose a very diplomatic approach, and the future is what's important not the UN's (Anan's) insistance that the war was illeagal. Persaonlly I don't think that's important anymore either, but certain people continue to constantly rehash old shit. Like he said "I don't want to look back", get over it, what's done is done.
> 
> How you consider Canada to be like France is beyond me, but you have the right to your opinon, bash away.



I certainly don't see Canada to be nearly the US antagonist that France is and can appreciate any one who is tired of rehashing old shit. Time to take what is and move on. (I'll give ya a nickel to stop the statue dedicated to draft dodgers tho! )


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I certainly don't see Canada to be nearly the US antagonist that France is and can appreciate any one who is tired of rehashing old shit. Time to take what is and move on. (I'll give ya a nickel to stop the statue dedicated to draft dodgers tho! )



HA!


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> they did contribute troops to enduring freedom (remember the canadian soldiers that were killed by accident by an american bomber?)  matter of fact, they saw combat i believe.  they just didn't agree with us on iraq.  i believe in the next crisis, they will be by our side this time.
> 
> my faith in canada i suppose.



You mean in Afghanistan? I was referring to Iraq. Moreover, was not the Canadian military deployment in Afghanistan part of the after the fact NATO deployment? They were not there at the beginning like, e.g., the Australians.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I certainly don't see Canada to be nearly the US antagonist that France is and can appreciate any one who is tired of rehashing old shit. Time to take what is and move on. (I'll give ya a nickel to stop the statue dedicated to draft dodgers tho! )



But dillo, this is not "old shit." The Canadians probably wish is was. Annan's remarks and Martin's failure to speak against them (unlike our actual allies such as the UK, Australia, Poland, Italy, etc.) happened yesterday.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> You mean in Afghanistan? I was referring to Iraq. Moreover, was not the Canadian military deployment in Afghanistan part of the after the fact NATO deployment? They were not there at the beginning like, e.g., the Australians.



Yes I was referring to Iraq.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> NATO, I think your ideas on this are logical, but they are not likely to happen anytime soon with the anti-American Liberal government that exists in Ottawa. Please Google "Canadian anti-Americanism" and read some of the articles. To describe Canada as the France of the Western Hemisphere is only a small, if any, exaggeration.
> 
> PS. Except for a few aging F18s, America already handles Canadian Air Defense. Supposedly we have a joint American-Canadian Air Defense Command (NORAD) headquartered in Colorado.



Try some American sites and read some of the articles and posts. There are many Amercan writers who do anything but support America, Bush or the war in Iraq. Your concern with anti-Americanism is warrented, but it's not limited to Canada.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

i like the canadians. i don't like most french (they're pompous and scare the shit out of me w/ their viewpoint that america is EVIL).  
canadians bought me beer when they found out i was in the navy. french canadian (french!) girl stole my electric razor and my favorite sweater (long story).
i'm the only american fan of the expos.  i love cheering against france in every sport.
i like canadian history, its interesting and appealing sort of. i despise french history, its one idiotic turn after another.
etc etc.  
okay, being serious now.

i'm biased.  i see canada made a mistake on iraq.  i know canadian politicians have said some pretty disgusting and untrue (i read your link onedomino) things about america to get more votes and support.  i also see american politicans doing the same thing here though too.  i think canada doesn't have a very good military right now because of the budget difficulties and bad policies.  yet overly criticizing them won't do much good... we want to draw them closer to us, not away from us.  they're not near hopeless like the french.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> As far as I know, President Bush is the only recent sitting President that has refused to visit Canada. This is not because Canadian foreign policy is supportive of America.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/12/bushcda_030412



Like I said, rehashing old shit. Chretien and his media debacle is gone. Time to move on.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> But dillo, this is not "old shit." The Canadians probably wish is was. Annan's remarks and Martin's failure to speak against them (unlike our actual allies such as the UK, Australia, Poland, Italy, etc.) happened yesterday.



I wasn't aware that anyone spoke out against Annan's remarks. Rhetoric is all useless now anyway--It's like the US election--the lines have been drawn and no one is open to flexibilty. The US is just going to have to go with what it has right now and hope for the best. To hell with the UN


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Try some American sites and read some of the articles and posts. There are many Amercan writers who do anything but support America, Bush or the war in Iraq. Your concern with anti-Americanism is warrented, but it's not limited to Canada.



I asked you to elaborate about how Canada helped America in Iraq "from the beginning." How are they helping now?

Said, the news and articles that Googling "Canadian anit-Americanism" returns are dominated by reports of Canadian government anti-Americanism and behavior that is not supportive of American foreign policy. None of my "Canadian anti-Americanism" references in these posts referes to ordinary Canadians (however, anti-Americanism is significant in Eastern Canada); rather it is the Canadian government of which I am critical.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that anyone spoke out against Annan's remarks. Rhetoric is all useless now anyway--It's like the US election--the lines have been drawn and no one is open to flexibilty. The US is just going to have to go with what it has right now and hope for the best. To hell with the UN



Yes. Annan's remarks to the BBC regarding the illegality of the Iraq war were condemned by the UK, Italy, Poland, Australia, and other actual allies of the US. The remark was not condemned by the neutral country to the north.

For example:

http://networks.org/?src=abcau:200409:s1200460


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> I asked you to elaborate about how Canada helped America in Iraq "from the beginning." How are they helping now?



Google it yourself. Prove me wrong. You are very quick with your assertions that Canada has done little or nothing to help, do your own research.



> Said, the news and articles that Googling "Canadian anit-Americanism" returns are dominated by reports of Canadian government anti-Americanism and behavior that is not supportive of American foreign policy. None of my "Canadian anti-Americanism" references in these posts referes to ordinary Canadians (however, anti-Americanism is significant in Eastern Canada); rather it is the Canadian government of which I am critical.



Here's where your wrong, anit-Americanism is rampant through out Canada, I won't and never will argue against that, I promise.

What happened yesterday does involve  old arguments and is a seemingly sad attempt by Anan to win a few points for his failing organization and career for that matter. Focus on the future is not sitting on the fence it's rather progressive if you ask me. If you want to here "rah, rah, sis boom bah" from Martin you probably never will.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Like I said, rehashing old shit. Chretien and his media debacle is gone. Time to move on.



Move on from what? Where to? Canadian foreign policy is still not supportive of America.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2004)

Feeling bad for us about 9/11 is all they have to offer.  Other than that, it's business as usual.  America=bad, UN=Good.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Google it yourself. Prove me wrong. You are very quick with your assertions that Canada has done little or nothing to help, do your own research.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What are you talking about? You are the one that said Canada was in Iraq "from the beginning." You cannot demonstrate that because it is not true. Never mind...just forget it.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? You are the one that said Canada was in Iraq "from the beginning." You cannot demonstrate that because it is not true. Never mind...just forget it.




Stay with me here. If Anan didn't add anything new to add to his arguments of the war being illegal, I say move on. Get it.

YOU can not 'demonstrate' that they we not hahaha. So ya, Fuck off.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Feeling bad for us about 9/11 is all they have to offer.  Other than that, it's business as usual.  America=bad, UN=Good.



Nice to see you've been paying attention.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Stay with me here. If Anan didn't add anything new to add to his arguments of the war being illegal, I say move on. Get it.
> 
> YOU can not 'demonstrate' that they we not hahaha. So ya, Fuck off.



Prove a negative? You are absurd. Why did I bother speaking with you on this? What a waste of time. Thank you for the thoughtful remark. You are a class act.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Nice to see you've been paying attention.



Is this sarcasm.  I can't tell.  Am I missing something?


----------



## CSM (Sep 22, 2004)

Actually, the Canadians have been helping out all along:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_4_1_2003-07-29.asp

That is just one example. The Canadian military is deliberately low profile; it helps their efficiency and credibility in peace keeping efforts.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Prove a negative? You are absurd. Why did I bother speaking with you on this? What a waste of time. Thank you for the thoughtful remark. You are a class act.



Thanks, always here to help.

Like I said, you are quick with your assertions, YOU need to prove them too.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Is this sarcasm.  I can't tell.  Am I missing something?



Re: other posts.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Re: other posts.



SO I'm not paying attention to other posts?  OR I am paying attention to other posts?  OR am i just being a jerk again?  I can't read your mind.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> SO I'm not paying attention to other posts?  OR I am paying attention to other posts?  OR am i just being a jerk again?  I can't read your mind.



Why not? If I have to tell you what I mean, then I'm just not going to tell you. 

Yes it would appear that you do pay attention.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Why not? If I have to tell you what I mean, then I'm just not going to tell you.
> 
> Yes it would appear that you do pay attention.



You're sexy when you act coy!


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're sexy when you act coy!



Did I responde to quickly this time?? Don't want to appear to anxious.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Did I responde to quickly this time?? Don't want to appear to anxious.



Your response time is optimal!  Hotstuff!  I'll show you some american style grattitude.  Do you like it rough?


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

i'm not sure i'm old enough for this kind of talk...

 bedtime for the virgin ears

 :teeth: glad you all can find humor after a contentious debate


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

CSM said:
			
		

> Actually, the Canadians have been helping out all along:
> 
> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_4_1_2003-07-29.asp
> 
> That is just one example. The Canadian military is deliberately low profile; it helps their efficiency and credibility in peace keeping efforts.



Certainly the US appreciates the contribution that Canada has made to the NATO effort in Afghanistan. The Canadians were not present for destroying the Taliban, as were the Australians and the British.

My posts above were directed at Said's assertion that Canada helped America in the war on Iraq. Of course there was no such help and Canada was not part of the "Coalitition of the Willing." I asked Said to back up the assertion that Canada was there "from the beginning." I was told to "fuck off." A very intelligent rejoinder.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien, reply to a question on Iraq during Question Period, House of Commons, Ottawa, March 19; website of the Prime Minister.

"I want to set out the position of the government of Canada. We believe that Iraq must fully abide by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. We have always made clear that Canada would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign. Over the last few weeks the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action. Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately we were not successful. *If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate*. We have ships in the area as part of our participation in the struggle against terrorism. Our ships will continue to perform their important mission against terrorism."

Of course they did not participate and were not there from "the beginning."

http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0303/doc24.htm#can


----------



## CSM (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Certainly the US appreciates the contribution that Canada has made to the NATO effort in Afghanistan. The Canadians were not present for destroying the Taliban, as were the Australians and the British.
> 
> My posts above were directed at Said's assertion that Canada helped America in the war on Iraq. Of course there was no such help and Canada was not part of the "Coalitition of the Willing." I asked Said to back up the assertion that Canada was there "from the beginning." I was told to "fuck off." A very intelligent rejoinder.
> 
> ...



The very article you posted indicates they had ships in the area and that they would continue to operate. If by participation you mean they weren't charging across Iraq in tanks, then I agree; however, there are other forms of participation.

There is no doubt that the US bears the lion's share of the military mission in Iraq, but no contribution is unimportant.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Certainly the US appreciates the contribution that Canada has made to the NATO effort in Afghanistan. The Canadians were not present for destroying the Taliban, as were the Australians and the British.



Never said they were.



> My posts above were directed at Said's assertion that Canada helped America in the war on Iraq. Of course there was no such help and Canada was not part of the "Coalitition of the Willing."



Never said they were part of a coalition of the willing. What I did say was they were there, but perhaps not in the way YOU would prefer. 



> I asked Said to back up the assertion that Canada was there "from the beginning." I was told to "fuck off." A very intelligent rejoinder.



You insulted me first, so lets get that straight. I asked you to prove they were not there, you have not.



> Prime Minister Jean Chretien, reply to a question on Iraq during Question Period, House of Commons, Ottawa, March 19; website of the Prime Minister.
> 
> "I want to set out the position of the government of Canada. We believe that Iraq must fully abide by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. We have always made clear that Canada would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign. Over the last few weeks the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action. Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately we were not successful. *If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate*. We have ships in the area as part of our participation in the struggle against terrorism. Our ships will continue to perform their important mission against terrorism."
> 
> ...



This is your so called "proof". Perhaps you need to look at the date during that question period. Tis but to laugh.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Your response time is optimal!  Hotstuff!  I'll show you some american style grattitude.  Do you like it rough?



I usually get to be "master".


----------



## Merlin1047 (Sep 27, 2004)

Squabbling with out neighbors is not a productive activity.

Canada is a sovereign nation, the same as we.  They have the right to decide their fate and they are not obliged to acquiesce to every request we make of them.

I believe that they were wrong in failing to participate in the Iraq war.  I believe that Canada sent an unintentional message to terrorists that they do not support the WOT and by extension, are therefore sympathetic to terrorist causes.  I believe that Canada will suffer an influx of terrorists because the perception will be that they are soft on terrorism.

But those are merely my opinions.  Whether any of them will be proven to be correct remains to be seen.

In the meantime, we should not direct our anger at the Canadians simply because they disagreed with us.  We should not damage our relationship with our northern neighbor by lumping them in with the likes of France.  Canada simply disagreed.  They did not seek to subvert our efforts, they did not secretly arm our enemies, nor did they seek to prevent us from acting.  

It would have been nice if the Canadians had been more understanding that this is a critical time in history.  Our nation has been attacked and stands to be attacked again in the future.  Our President and our military are pursuing a campaign to preclude future attacks on our soil.  I believe that Canadians should be justifiably criticized for their lack of perception on that point.

It would also be appropriate if Canadians asked themselves "Were our situations reversed and we called to the USA for help, how would they respond?"

I'd like to think that we would have responded in a more supportive manner.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Sep 27, 2004)

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Squabbling with out neighbors is not a productive activity.
> 
> Canada is a sovereign nation, the same as we.  They have the right to decide their fate and they are not obliged to acquiesce to every request we make of them.
> 
> ...



While I agree, with most of your post wholeheartedly, I was under the impression by the US administration that the War in Iraq was over Weapons of Mass destruction and liberation of a tyranical government rather than an extension of the War on Terrorism?  I believe both the administration and the 9/11 commission have distanced the two.


----------



## Merlin1047 (Sep 28, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> While I agree, with most of your post wholeheartedly, I was under the impression by the US administration that the War in Iraq was over Weapons of Mass destruction and liberation of a tyranical government rather than an extension of the War on Terrorism?  I believe both the administration and the 9/11 commission have distanced the two.



Oh, very funny indeed, smartass. :tng:  :tng: 

That may be the official political statement but while I may be crazy, I am neither stupid nor blind.  In my opinion, GW attacked Iraq because (1) Saddam was a destabilizing factor throughout the middle east, (2)  Saddam was sponsoring terrorists  (3) Saddam had attempted to assasinate Bush Sr.  (4)  An object lesson was needed for those middle east nations who sponsored terrorism and GW felt that Iraq best served that purpose and would raise less ire among moslems than attacking any other middle east terrorist sponsor.   (5) Saddam was the worst of the worst in regard to his abuse of his people.

So there you have it.  If you don't believe me, you're free to seek a second opinion.  But I'll probably tell you the same thing then too.

 :teeth:  :teeth:


----------

