US losing faith in Canada

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US losing faith in Canada

Originally posted by Willem
In case you haven't noticed, the UN has been badly fractured, with the US questioning it's relevancy. It's been a diplomatic battle between the US and the UN essentialy. We're letting the world know which side we're on.

UNSC has proven itself to be completely and totally useless.

The UN is only useful with organizations like UNICEF.

[Willem]

Re: Canadian hypocrissy

Originally posted by Chris 62
How does supporting France's unilateral veto of any attempt to bring Saddam to compliance support the UN?

We're simply working within the current organization of the UN. Whether or not that organization is effective or not is a different subject. France has a veto; that's just the rules, and we wish to abide by those rules.

[SlowwHand]

America figured out that Russia, Germany, and France didn't make a damned bit of difference; if you want to get right down to it.

All of the named have their little secret agendas going.
But, let's consult their opinion.

[RedFred]

Originally posted by Sava
My suspicion is that a lot of these "Anti-Ameicans" are simply "Anti-Bush". I could be wrong though. I probably am... oh hell, I'll save you guys the trouble. I"M WRONG

No. You are wrong about being wrong.

And many of us are not even Anti-Bush. There is a sentiment that this is not even in the Americans own self interest to be in Iraq.

The US Ambassador was not being very diplomatic for a diplomat. Not the first time either. Compiling a list of anti-Canadian Americans would be at least as easy as anti-US Canadian remarks. But I hope neither is representative of most people on either side of the border.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sava
My suspicion is that a lot of these "Anti-Ameicans" are simply "Anti-Bush". I could be wrong though. I probably am... oh hell, I'll save you guys the trouble. I"M WRONG

No you're not wrong. Bush is not well liked here. In fact we like him less than any president that I can remember, and I've been around for awhile. We liked Clinton, we can't stand Bush.

[Sava]

Bush doesn't have his own agenda?

[Chris 62]

Re: Re: Canadian hypocrissy

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Unilateral? Russia also said it was going to veto, and the US couldn't even muster enough votes for the ultimatum to pass.

Nice spin Che.

The neutral six said they wouldn't vote if France would Veto, and you claim the US "didn't have the votes".

If they didn't why did France (60 billion deals with Saddam) and Russia (owed 7 billion by Saddam) BOTH threaten vetoes?

If the US didn't have the votes, they wouldn't have bothered, now would they.

[RedFred]

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

[Chris 62]

Re: Re: Canadian hypocrissy

Originally posted by Willem
We're simply working within the current organization of the UN. Whether or not that organization is effective or not is a different subject. France has a veto; that's just the rules, and we wish to abide by those rules.

So, you say "to hell with the SPIRT of the law, let's stick to the LETTER."

That is very dangerous you know, you can justify all kinds of things doing that.

[Willem]

Originally posted by flash9286



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

Yeah right! Most of them are just in it looking for financial aid from the US, and the rest are afraid to admit they're part of it. A short while ago the Dutch Defence Minister complained when one of his officers appeared in a press photo. Now that's really showing support! Like Cellucci said, we're helping indirectly more than most of the other nations. And we've already committed to help clean up afterwards exactly like Japan, yet I don't hear the Americans screaming about how they're not doing their part.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Canadian hypocrissy

Originally posted by Chris 62
So, you say "to hell with the SPIRT of the law, let's stick to the LETTER."

That is very dangerous you know, you can justify all kinds of things doing that.

That depends on whether it's a good law or not. And we think that forbidding one nation to invade another unilaterally is a good one. On that issue yes, we wish to stick to the letter of the law.

[Chris 62]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Canadian hypocrissy

Originally posted by Willem


That depends on whether it's a good law or not. And we think that forbidding one nation to invade another unilaterally is a good one. On that issue yes, we wish to stick to the letter of the law.

That's very interesting, but it wasn't the issue.

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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
If it would have been cleared in the Security Council, we would have been behind you 100%.

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

[flash9286]

49 countires have publically said they support the war, other have no shown public support.

[Sava]

Other than our natural allies, most are simply turncoats that want to be in the US's good graces. Look at Bulgaria for Pete's Sake. Pro-Nazi, when Germany was the big boy on the block... pro-Soviet after they took power... and now Pro-US. Some allies

But the situation is complicated and each country supports the US for its own reasons. Only Britain and Australia support the US because they feel it's the right thing to do.