Typical Lack of Support from Our "Friends" in Ottawa

[onedomino]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.