U.S. ambassador rebukes Canada for lack of support - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

gigi · 03-26-2003, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
all that socialism leads to having no spine. They should have at least sent some troops to help.

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.

FlyingIguana · 03-26-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Try saying the words "What do you mean?" next time. Most times, shit like this isn't worth causing a fuckus about, and it is plainly obvious from my posts that I am in support of what those Canadians are doing so my meaning was not all that ambiguous.

You've been quick to jump on me before, and if you continue to do so my invitation stands. If you're going to puff your toughness everywhere, shaddap and prove it. Otherwise try playing nice.

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

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana
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.

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 07:30 PM

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>

Quote:

This isn't the first time Cellucci (the U.S. Ambassador) has criticized Canadian policy. In the past he has complained that the Chrétien government doesn't spend enough money on defence.

Horror of HORRORS! You mean someone <i>dared</i> to suggest that Canada doesn't have a sufficiently-funded military???!

OMG!! Alert the press!

FlyingIguana · 03-26-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Then I guess your only choice is to play nice, EH?

Take your time, it'll come to you.

i only play nice when i want to

LadyMischief · 03-26-2003, 07:33 PM

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.

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Thirty-six Liberals lined up to speak in caucus, after an Ontario MP argued Canada should lodge a formal protest.

One camp argued the ambassador crossed the line, behaving more like a partisan politician than a diplomat. Some even argued he should be recalled.

In the other camp were MPs who think he was only responding to the anti-American comments by Liberals: cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal calling President George W. Bush a failed statesman, and MP Carolyn Parrish calling all Americans "bastards."

no comment needed.

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Chrétien reminded the Commons that Canadians took in 40,000 Americans after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; that Canada has contributed to the war on terrorism by sending troops to Afghanistan and ships to the Arabian Sea. Canada, he said, will also contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq.

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

Sly_RJ · 03-26-2003, 07:41 PM

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

Figures...

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 07:43 PM

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.

FlyingIguana · 03-26-2003, 07:48 PM

Quote:

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

Figures...

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

Sly_RJ · 03-26-2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana

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?

gigi · 03-26-2003, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

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.....

FlyingIguana · 03-26-2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

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?

trying to look good globally while not pissing off americans.

Sly_RJ · 03-26-2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gigi

You got it pontiac.....

That's disgusting.

What a pussy.

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 08:13 PM

This is Canada's official position:

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

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

The Ekos Research poll showed 41 per cent of Canadians are against an attack, while 40 per cent remain in favour. In Quebec, the support for joining in an American attack drops dramatically to only 23 per cent. In Alberta, that numbers shoots up to 57 per cent. Even more interesting: while more than half the country sees "the greatest threat" as being Saddam Hussein, another 38 per cent say George W. Bush is the one to worry about.

That IS interesting.

Sly_RJ · 03-26-2003, 08:23 PM

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.

sacX · 03-26-2003, 08:24 PM

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.

FlyingIguana · 03-26-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
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.

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

Fletch XXX · 03-26-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX

You say 'blah blah 12 years worth of resolutions'.

<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

gigi · 03-26-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

That's disgusting.

What a pussy.

Yup...

sacX · 03-26-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

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

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

Sly_RJ · 03-26-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana

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

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?

sacX · 03-26-2003, 08:36 PM

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

ChrisH · 03-26-2003, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana

ok if you meant more along the lines of but they're canadians and not making it sound like people from the maritimes are shit and don't represent real canadians, then i don't have a problem with it. choose your words a bit more carefully in the future. you really made it stand out that they may have been canadians but they were from nb and ns by putting it on a seperate line as if you were emphasizing it.

it was you who made the initial threat, i simply told you to fuck off.

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

Disclaimer: Not in any way meant as an insult.

Cogitator · 03-26-2003, 09:23 PM

Isn't Chretien french for "cretin"?

directfiesta · 03-26-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cogitator
Isn't Chretien french for "cretin"?

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

Chretien is Christian....

Fletch XXX · 03-26-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
that link is from 5 years ago.

exactly.

directfiesta · 03-26-2003, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana

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

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"!

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
exactly.

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

I do.

directfiesta · 03-26-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

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.

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

Now I understand your posts.

directfiesta · 03-26-2003, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
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.

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.

FlyingIguana · 03-26-2003, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

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

Now I understand your posts.

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

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
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.

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

Fletch XXX · 03-26-2003, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

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

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

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

directfiesta · 03-26-2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

<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...

Fletch XXX · 03-26-2003, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

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.

directfiesta · 03-26-2003, 10:14 PM

OK.

CDSmith · 03-26-2003, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

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.

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.

rossiya2 · 03-27-2003, 02:57 AM

Onion was crispy today

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.

ControlThy · 03-27-2003, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Why? Because I support their cause? Because I disagree with our PM's stance and agree with some of the Opposition in the House of Commons?

Pretty stupid comment to make. Many other Canadians feel as I do, what are you going to suggest half the population leave because they support the UK and US?

Stupid.

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.

ControlThy · 03-27-2003, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

Are you saying the French should move to Iraq?

?

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

sacX · 03-27-2003, 04:18 AM

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?

03-26-2003, 07:33 PM	#56
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	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. __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

03-26-2003, 07:41 PM	#59
Sly_RJ Live Hard - Die Hard Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ready to leave... Posts: 17,042	Contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq? Does that mean he'll be looking for UN issued contracts? Figures... __________________ PHAT SERVERS - Quality dedicated hosting at a quality price! sly AT phatservers DOT com - 147479144

03-26-2003, 07:43 PM	#60
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	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. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

03-26-2003, 08:13 PM	#66
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	This is Canada's official position: http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/canada_role.html __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

03-26-2003, 08:23 PM	#68
Sly_RJ Live Hard - Die Hard Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ready to leave... Posts: 17,042	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. __________________ PHAT SERVERS - Quality dedicated hosting at a quality price! sly AT phatservers DOT com - 147479144

03-26-2003, 08:24 PM	#69
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	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.

03-26-2003, 08:36 PM	#75
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	FletchXXX what's your point? that link is from 5 years ago, and it says it was large symbolic.

03-26-2003, 09:23 PM	#77
Cogitator Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 672	Isn't Chretien french for "cretin"? __________________ - this space intentionally left blank -

03-26-2003, 10:14 PM	#89
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,679	OK. __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

03-27-2003, 02:57 AM	#91
rossiya2 Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 287	Onion was crispy today 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. Last edited by rossiya2; 03-27-2003 at 03:20 AM..

03-27-2003, 04:18 AM	#94
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	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?