Typical Lack of Support from Our "Friends" in Ottawa

[rtwngAvngr]

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]

You're sexy when you act coy!

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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."

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

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

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

 

[Said1]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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: