Announcement

**Edan** · February 13, 2003, 19:13

Originally posted by Frogger
I just like taking the piss out of Israelis, Americans and Greeks.

Are those your 2 cents? Oh, sorry, your 3 Canadian Dollars.

**Ned** · February 13, 2003, 19:13

Trajanus, The US has a right to a pursue foreign policy independently of Europe. This is not arrogance.

We have asked the UN and NATO for help. France has become active in denying the US the help of the UN and NATO. France is supposed to be our friend and ally. If France does not agree with US foreign policy, it can simply stand aside rather than join us to the extent it has no legal obligations of support. But what France has done is actively oppose US policy.

This is a distinction with a difference. During Vietnam, many in the US opposed the war for one reason or another. Few, if any, though, went to fight for North Vietnam. (Jane Fonda did.) To the extent they would have, they would have become traitors and enemies of the United States.

France has been our friend an ally for more than 200 years. We were born with French help. We returned the favor twice in the last century. (We even provided support for the French effort in Indochina.) Friends and allies do not actively support the enemy against the the other. But, that is what the French are now doing. They are supporting Saddam.

When Belgium provides jurisdiction over government officials of another state without the consent of that other state, I cannot see how they cannot be committing acts of war. They can only get away with it because they believe they have NATO's support if the concerned nation attacks to rescue its government officials or soldiers.

When Spain tried to arrest Pinochet while he was visiting London, a possible reaction to the arrest would have been a declaration war on Spain by Chile. I for one would have said that Spain was asking for it and would have wanted to keep America out of such a war.

Az · February 13, 2003, 19:13

Hi. You're wrong. We have plutonium-burning plants in operation right now (disposing of other people's old warheads). Which means that it wouldn't take more than 8-12 weeks. And a little birdie told me that we might have a few "pieces" that we forgot to tell the IAEA about too.

I don't know why, by the notion of any canadian making military threats makes me laugh. It's a good thing, though. You're lucky to live in a peaceful region.

**DanS** · February 13, 2003, 19:16

For the Americans, remind them of the War of 1812

We fired our guns
and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many
as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and
they began to runnin' on
down the Mississippi
to the Gulf of Mexico.

**Ned** · February 13, 2003, 19:19

Originally posted by Azazel

I don't know why, by the notion of any canadian making military threats makes me laugh. It's a good thing, though. You're lucky to live in a peaceful region.

I was reading that the Canadian goverment intends to actively support us in Iraq with a special unit that is highly skilled in urban combat.

Bravo Canadians!

**KrazyHorse** · February 13, 2003, 19:20

Azazel

You should see the diefenbunker.

Diefenbunker: Canada's Cold War Museum

http://www.diefenbunker.ca/

Experience Ottawa's immersive history destination. A former Cold War communications headquarters, now a one-of-a-kind museum and national historic site.

We weren't under Soviet ground threat, but the battle for North America was going to be fought in our airspace.

It was at this point, after some small falling-out with the US that I'm informed the Canadian government hired some physicists for an unspecified project. And I'm not aware of the results being disposed of.

So watch your step or we'll float one down to the Med in a sub.

**KrazyHorse** · February 13, 2003, 19:21

Originally posted by Ned

I was reading that the Canadian goverment intends to actively support us in Iraq with a special unit that is highly skilled in urban combat.

Bravo Canadians!

Really now? Where'd you hear this?

**Traianvs** · February 13, 2003, 19:22

Trajanus, The US has a right to a pursue foreign policy independently of Europe. This is not arrogance.

Well, if that's your opinion, then so be it, but don't expect everybody else to follow it, France may oppose it, but it doesn't really actively oppose it, I mean, it's not like France is going to prevent a war on Iraq, they just strongly disagree with you, and perhaps they try to be a bit more critical than you, and attempt to prevent the war in one way or another, but still, they're not doing anything major to stop Bush, what they are doing is just showing Bush he can't just do what he wants, that there are ppl with other opinions... And I'm glad this is happening, imagine a world in which Bush would have no opposition, and in which he could do whatever his folly mind wished... Oh boy, it sure wouldn't look pretty

Btw I'm not talking of France as an angel, Vietnam (both France and the US) was completely nuts there, but you know times change, and politics change as well, yesterdays friend could be tomorrows enemy and vice versa, just like the US first supported osama and then...

At least I'm not so naive to think alliances are binding for eternity,... alliances are just there in a certain situation that benefits both parties, but they never last for eternity dude

And besides, it's not because we are allies, that we actually have to support an attack on another country, even if the leader of that country is a complete **** and an *******.

**KrazyHorse** · February 13, 2003, 19:23

Originally posted by DanS
For the Americans, remind them of the War of 1812

We fired our guns
and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many
as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and
they began to runnin' on
down the Mississippi
to the Gulf of Mexico.

Ah, now: you see what happens to native British troops without being bolstered by our Indians and militias?

New Orleans was a sideshow anyhoo.

The War was fought and lost by the US at Stoney Creek.

**KrazyHorse** · February 13, 2003, 19:29

Is it frightening that I've sung that song in front of 100 000 people?

**Traianvs** · February 13, 2003, 19:34

Hmmmm what exactly do you mean

**KrazyHorse** · February 13, 2003, 19:37

Exactly what I said.

In 1814 we took a little trip...

Of course, it was immediately followed by Barrett's Privateers.

Az · February 13, 2003, 19:38

This site is so soureal, frogger.

"Canada, and the cold war".
The amounts of imagery my mind conjures are staggering.

**KrazyHorse** · February 13, 2003, 19:39

It's named after our PM Diefenbaker.

**Ned** · February 13, 2003, 19:41

Originally posted by Trajanus

Well, if that's your opinion, then so be it, but don't expect everybody else to follow it, France may oppose it, but it doesn't really actively oppose it, I mean, it's not like France is going to prevent a war on Iraq, they just strongly disagree with you, and perhaps they try to be a bit more critical than you, and attempt to prevent the war in one way or another, but still, they're not doing anything major to stop Bush, what they are doing is just showing Bush he can't just do what he wants, that there are ppl with other opinions... And I'm glad this is happening, imagine a world in which Bush would have no opposition, and in which he could do whatever his folly mind wished... Oh boy, it sure wouldn't look pretty

Btw I'm not talking of France as an angel, Vietnam (both France and the US) was completely nuts there, but you know times change, and politics change as well, yesterdays friend could be tomorrows enemy and vice versa, just like the US first supported osama and then...

At least I'm not so naive to think alliances are binding for eternity,... alliances are just there in a certain situation that benefits both parties, but they never last for eternity dude

And besides, it's not because we are allies, that we actually have to support an attack on another country, even if the leader of that country is a complete **** and an *******.

As to offensive actions, allies do not have to provide support if they do not agree. This is very true. No one is debating this.

For weeks now, if not months, we had been hoping for French military support against Iraq. But, with within the last week, this attitude has changed. Many here would reject any French offer of support. The reason is that France has gone beyond having a different view on how to deal with Iraq. It has begun to actively oppose any solution that makes sense - especially with its plans to provide French occupation troops and French airpatrols under UN command. This sounds like France simply wants Saddam to surrender to France rather than to the United States. With France, he gets to keep his job.

As Blix said also, without disarming Saddam's army, what are the French forces supposed to do if Saddam's army blocks inspections? The French plan is not well thought out. It is very clear that the French forces would be there to provide the image of occupation without the reality of occupation.

Getting back to the basic issue: Why do you believe that the US should subject its foregn policy to European approval?

Announcement

Has Belgium gone mad?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment