US losing faith in Canada

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by flash9286



Did u forget the other 49 countires that support the war.

Can anyone actually name those countries, and what actual support they are providing.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canadian hypocrissy

Originally posted by Chris 62

The issue was whether the UN would uphold it's own resolutions.

Not from our perspective.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not all the Canadians disagree with Bush.

I'm one who is not anti-Bush, but I disagree with the reasons for starting this war.

It's obvious why Canadians hate Bush. He's a right wing Texan.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Not likely given Cretin's decision to send the Canadian army to Afghanistan before the UNSC had fully resolved the matter.

That was a completely different situation. We sided with the US on that one; it was a defensive strike on a country that, perhaps indirecty, attacked yours. Again we were following the guidelines of international law.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canadian hypocrissy

Originally posted by Willem


Not from our perspective.

PS If you were with a friend and he decided to steal a car, would you automatically go along with it?

[KrazyHorse]

Re: US losing faith in Canada

Originally posted by Asher

http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=46F209C2-C957-4166-B988-1ACB9C798076

Will Canada's position of the far further hurt relations between the two nations, already strained by the Liberal's general ineptitude?

Cellucci's a ****.

That's pretty much what I got from his news conference.

What's the US going to do? Impose unfair tarriffs on softwood lumber and wheat, and refuse to prosecute those who act recklessly, resulting in the deaths of our soldiers?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
That was a completely different situation.

How so? It was an action taken by your PM that effectively said no to participation on the Iraq issue.

[KrazyHorse]

Because the US was attacked by people living in Afghanistan with the compliance (tacit, at least) of the de facto government.

Action in Afghanistan was actually self-defense and required no SC resolution. Action in Iraq is only self-defense in the most tortured of explanations.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

How so? It was an action taken by your PM that effectively said no to participation on the Iraq issue.

Huh? How does us sending troops to Afghanistan have anything to do with our participation in Iraq? Sorry, but I don't follow your leap in logic. We were in Afghanistan before Iraq even became an issue, the two are completely unrelated.

[Spiffor]

I think the Americans "losing faith" in the Canadians has a similar explanation as the Americans hating the French. Both peoples have been mildly made fun of for decades. Be that a cause or a consequence, Canucks and French also had many jokes about the Yanks.

I think these jokes include a belief, to some extent, the countries are inferior to the US, and you cannot expect to be hindered by them. At least, I feel that spirit in the many jokes the French have towards the Belgians, I'm nearly sure all countries have similar jokes towards an "inferior" neighbour.

Now that the Americans see they are not supported by most foreign nations, it is normal they turn to their usual laughingstock to stress-out. Their opposition to the US comes as a surprise, and a clear disappointment. I think that explains why France is hated in the US today, and not Germany. I think that explains why the Yanks "lose faith" in Canada, and not Japan.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
Huh? How does us sending troops to Afghanistan have anything to do with our participation in Iraq?

OTTAWA - Defence Minister John McCallum has ruled out sending Canadian ground troops to any war on Iraq.

McCallum confirmed Thursday that the government's recent commitment of peacekeepers to Afghanistan will prevent it from sending ground forces anywhere else for at least a year.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/27/mccallum030227

We also have this post from Frogger: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...=8#post1731349

[ThePantaloonDog]

Oh and sorry about my first post. I keep forgetting that people come here to argue about things rather than to think about them.

Debate here has nothing to do with thinking. Instead of coming up with coherent arguments with substantial proof to persuade your opponents view point you instead bombard them with articles from obviously biased sources and quotes taken out of context. Its more of a pissing contest to see how many 'sources' and quotes you can dish out in a 24 hour period. The one with the most (regardless of content) wins.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

OTTAWA - Defence Minister John McCallum has ruled out sending Canadian ground troops to any war on Iraq.

McCallum confirmed Thursday that the government's recent commitment of peacekeepers to Afghanistan will prevent it from sending ground forces anywhere else for at least a year.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/27/mccallum030227

We also have this post from Frogger: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...=8#post1731349

What's your point?

The point is more valid than ever. We aren't trying to offend the US, but this war is wrong and we won't be taking part.

[MarkG]

Can anyone actually name those countries, and what actual support they are providing.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, FYROM, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uganda

[KrazyHorse]

DD: what the hell?

You'll have to outline your argument because you aren't making any sense. You're arguing that we should be involved in Iraq because we were in Afghanistan or that we're making a commitment to Afghanistan in order to avoid making a commitment to Iraq?

The first is spurious, the second is undoubtable.