Canada has sent troops to Afghanistan to relieve US troops from Afghan duty so they can fight in Iraq.....

What spews out of Chretien's mouth isn't necessarily true.....he DOES and HAS supported the Iraq War...whether it was directly, or indirectly...makes no difference IMO.

prove it? you want me to jump on my bike and drive to manitoba? my wrists would be a bit sore...

Then I guess your only choice is to play nice, EH?



Take your time, it'll come to you.

Further to: the topic... apparently and not surprisingly... it's not over.

Look here: <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/26/libscellucci030326" TARGET="_blank"><b>Liberals caucus considered expelling U.S. ambassador</b></a>
Horror of HORRORS! You mean someone <i>dared</i> to suggest that Canada doesn't have a sufficiently-funded military???!

OMG!! Alert the press!

i only play nice when i want to

I've said it before and I'll say it again, our PM is an assmunch who should be dragged into the street along with his entire fucking party and beaten bloody with rubber farm animals.

no comment needed.

Let's hope it's enough mr Prime Minister.

Contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq? Does that mean he'll be looking for UN issued contracts?

Figures...

It probably means that we will send in peacekeeping forces, specialty teams for disaster aid, and also a ton of building supplies, food, clothing, and personnel to assist with the entire coalition post-war operation.

i just seen on a news break that canada's gonna put up 100 mil to help rebuild iraq.

Ok, cool.

I keep getting mixed signals here. Have been reading some articles from Canadian news sources. And it almost looks like Canada is supporting this "war", just doesn't want to admit it.

What's your take?

You got it pontiac..... :thumbsup

trying to look good globally while not pissing off americans.

That's disgusting.

What a pussy.

This is Canada's official position:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/canada_role.html

That IS interesting.

What I find interesting is many people and nations across the globe feel Saddam is a threat and needs to be taken out, yet they refuse to back an invasion simply because some glorified body didn't name the invasion "ok".

Does anyone else find this funny? Someone needs to make your opinion "ok" in order for you to defend it?

The resolution didn't pass simply because of a few countries with veto power, as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong. So because of these few countries, who coincidentally have large business dealings with Iraq, the world decides not to support an invasion even though they think Saddam needs to go.

Doesn't this jump out at anyone else? If Canada is worried about the legitimacy of the UN, as the latest article states, then they should definitely be concerned about the veto powers of "interested" nations.

people can support regime removal but not the means that have been followed to achieve it.
What you gung-ho war people consistently over look is that people in the rest of the world
were never against war, they just wanted it to be a last resort.

You say 'blah blah 12 years worth of resolutions'. The reality is that Iraq only came back to public
attention because of US efforts, they got weapon inspectors re-instated to Iraq but NEVER intended to listen
to what they said. This was very hypocritical, and caused a lot of mistrust in many countries.

The US said they wanted to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, they neglected
to say that they wanted regime change and would settle for nothing less (again deceiving the international community)

The weapon inspectors didn't have a timetable of years, in fact they said their job could be done in three months.. The US couldn't wait three months, not because Saddam was an imminent threat, but because of logistical reasons (maybe practical but not the best moral reason for starting a war)..

The reason people are anti-GWB and his cronies is simple. We don't trust them.

Now I haven't heard one person say the Iraqi people wouldn't be better off without Saddam. It is sad
that the Arab world sees the civilians dying and blame the US, when thousands(or more) died under Saddam
and they said nothing.

I just hope there is a swift successful resolution to this now the path has been chosen.

the biggest problem that people who are totally against a war have is the potential civilian casualties.

<a href=http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/13/senate.iraq.vote/>U.S. Senate calls for war crimes trial for Saddam Hussein</a>

March 13, 1998

Yup...

It didn't pass because they didn't have the numbers, so it didn't get voted on. France threatened to veto it, but if the US had the numbers then forcing France to use their veto would have been useful because it would show that France was in the minority.

Also Tony Blair didn't want to have it voted on and lose, because it wouldn't have gone down well with the British public

Totally understandable. It's a concern of mine as well. Hey, I don't want these people dying any more than the peace protesters in San Francisco.

But, at the same time I realize how many civilians are already dying because of a brutal regime.

You can have a few hundred/thousand civilian deaths today, or a few hundred thousand deaths tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after.

I don't want any flames about "liberating Iraq". Hey, I actually want it to happen. It just so happens that several administrations want something done about Iraq as well. Although I do feel liberation is one of those factors, I'm not naive enough to believe it's the main factor. It's not. But, at the same time, isn't the liberation worth it?

FletchXXX what's your point? that link is from 5 years ago, and it says it was large symbolic.

I thought Americans had problems within the States. But you canucks beat out our animosity between your provinces hands down. :1orglaugh

Disclaimer: Not in any way meant as an insult.

Isn't Chretien french for "cretin"?

No, cretin is Moron... that you own with your " schrub"

Chretien is Christian....

exactly.

Not rebuild, 100 mil for " humanitarian aid".

Rebuild is the task of US/UK according to international law...

Just like in a store:

"you break it, you pay it"!

Do you get the feeling you'll be asked to 'splain that in detail cuz they jis don git it?


I do.


:evil-laug

Wrong: the resolution was never presented by the US at the UN council.

Now I understand your posts.

There has been 243 vetos since the creation of the UN. The US is the country to have use it most, mainly when sanction against Israel were on the table.

there was no point to present it because it would have been vetoed anyways.

We should obviously close our border, boycott them and eventually invade N. Dakota.

<a href=http://www.thespectrum.com/news/stories/20030326/opinion/1257048.html>Three opposing nations violate U.N. resolution</a>

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

Southern Utah press??/ hahahaha

I have one from the Alabama Klan's paper...

Make your own webpages, then link to it...

Thats the #1 Google News result for 'France - Veto - UN'

A news source like any other you guys use to back up your points.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=france+veto+un

spidered 14 hours ago.

i didnt say it was fact, in fact I said NOTHing, hahaha debate all you want.

OK.

:thumbsup

Most of the points in that article have been included, covered and corroborated in other reports by other news agencies. I see nothing overly slanted there.

Onion was crispy today

http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_39...ation_logo.jpg

Seems that a foreign power gets more heat for installing a dictator than removing him. But only if the dictator is removed by the people themselves. With Saddam revising history for the last 40 years the U.S can appear to be a savior to the people of Iraq, even if the world knows who put him there.

What the hell is wrong with you people, so sensitive!

I was just asking you if you would consider moving to the US because you disagree so strongly with the Canadian government.

Damn.

?

Is Iraq located next to France? - NO
Does Iraq have the same kind of political sytem? - NO

Is your comparison accurate? - NO
Is your post irrelevant? - YES

Fletch XXX,

that link is irrelevant and doesn't address the simplest of points I was making.

CDSmith: do you ever say anything that slightly resembles making sense?