Tulkas, I didn't mean "OTHER VOICES" as those that agree with. I'd expect you'd have higher standards for me. Guess I'll have to prove you wrong. I meant other voices, other than Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney the men virtually behind this move and regime change, and PNAC.
Since those are the policy advisors, what did you then mean "OTHER VOICES" to speak to the policy advisors? You mean he should have other policy advisors, I think. He is president, he can have who he wants as advisors. My opinion of you is fine.
Quote:
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I had a point about Celluci being that he is an Ambassador which gives him particular duty but I think you lost that in between your "superior" ears. We've been through the proceedings as you know, and we decided not to join and you know why too. And it was perfectly okay. As for Daliwal, public opinion of Bush himself is low, he's (as I said but guess you forgot that too) representing public opinion.
Daliwal presented it as official govenment position. Fine, if he was presenting public opinion on world events, as our natural resources minister, and that is ok, why is not ok that the ambasador, who's position actually involves relations between the 2 nations, speaks about his believe about American concerns?
Quote:
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
No I don't expect the US to say anything in fact why didn't Celluci do just that? You're characterising me as wanting the US to love the hell out us and such but I never said that did I?
Perhaps because he thought the Canadian people might actually want to hear an opinion of an actual US govenment official on the matter. If he has discussed it privately with Chretien, as the PM would have preferred, do you think the PM would be talking to us about the concerns the US has? And if you expect that he should just keep his mouth shut, about a matter that is his job to be concerned with, why then would not expect the same from Daliwal, whose job is totally unrelated?
Canada can do whatever Canada wants. Be pro-war, be anti-war, whatever. That's fine.
If that's really your view, it is more enlightened than that of the conservative politicians and press in Canada. Their view seems to be that Canada has an obligation to support the US decision to go to war, regardless of whether we think that it is right. It is amazing the degree to which the debate up here does not concern the merit (or lack of merit) in the American position, but a perceived automatic obligation to fall in line with whatever the US decides regardless of its merits.
Please tell me of another time such superior power was used so hesitantly and precisely in history.
Our 'precise' munitions aren't as 'precise' as you would like to believe. Troops on the ground are far better than guided missiles. Bush is doing a better job than he did in Afghanistan, but this does not mean 'Shock & Awe' was a good thing.
What other choice do you have? Can you enforce your will on anyone? Of course not.
Er... the rest of the world considers this sort of thing a last resort. As a defence of the 'superiority' of your nation over Canada it's not exactly, you know, a winner.
As long as Canadians are saying bush is an idiot, well, you can't disagree. Let's not forget also, that on 9-11 it was Canada that came to the aid of the US, with a massive redirection of planes to Canadian airports in the minutes following the 2nd and 3rd strikes. If there were more terrorists in the air, we took a big risk, which was resoundly overlooked by Bush in just about every public adress afterwards. Done, we know, to push the issue of blaming Canada for terrorist penetration into NA, and Canada shares a LOT of that blame, but so does the USA. Most of the terrorists in Canada were/are here on redirect from US immigration which has long had the hush hush habit of sending refugee claimants to the peace bridge "to let the Canadians deal with it. If the US now wants to clamp down the borders, good. That's what borders are for, we should do the same, and seriously start working together to clamp down on immigration across NA. The Bush admin went for a politics of deflection, "lets blame canada for our very poor security." Too bad, because we need to work together on this.
But really now... Who cares? What are we gonna contribute with our military? Troops that can't afford the right color uniform? And what exactly are we gonna do once the US has made up it's mind? Nothing. The sooner Canada recalls ALL troops and puts them to work on the border and the coasts, the better. Let the USA police the world. Peace keeping is a sham anyway, and I don't see why I have to pay money to keep patching up people who just want to kill each other the second we turn away. Fvck 'em.
I worry about NAFTA, we're getting reamed. Let's back out and let the corporations fend fo themselves. It's threatening our natural resource policies, our domestic policies and is at the root of the attack on public health care.
Mebbe the country is lost, and Canada is unsustainable, if so, then let's have harmonized currency NOW so the rest of my buying power doesn't go out the window with the aftermath of Mulroney. Yes Mulroney. It's become fashionable to blame Trudeau and then Chretien, but Mulroney spent twice as much as Trudeau in half as many years while he gleefully sewed the seeds of our undoing.
Ah Fvck! I don't give a shit, just gimme my cheap goods, keep the terrorists out of my country and my money out of their countries and leave me alone to drink beer on the weekends. Damn bastard Yankees, Canucks, leftist, rightist federalist, seperatists... ists ists ists. Fvck you all!
Let's not forget also, that on 9-11 it was Canada that came to the aid of the US, with a massive redirection of planes to Canadian airports in the minutes following the 2nd and 3rd strikes. If there were more terrorists in the air, we took a big risk, which was resoundly overlooked by Bush in just about every public adress afterwards.
Exactly. Whether we fall in line or not, Bush's opinion of Canada will never change.
Canada can do whatever Canada wants. Be pro-war, be anti-war, whatever. That's fine. Just try to keep from insulting us and bashing us for maybe 20 seconds. Keep it to one incident a month if you can.
I'm curious that you're even offended by the comments of Canadians since in your words, we're "not important".
I'm curious that you're even offended by the comments of Canadians since in your words, we're "not important".
I'm still trying to figure out why Chirac was considered such a beast for speaking out against the Eastern European countries while it's perfectly OK for the Bush administration to lambast our northernly neighbors.
I'm curious that you're even offended by the comments of Canadians since in your words, we're "not important".
Why would those two things be mutually exclusive?
bunge:
Quote:
I'm still trying to figure out why Chirac was considered such a beast for speaking out against the Eastern European countries while it's perfectly OK for the Bush administration to lambast our northernly neighbors.
Based on what I am hearing in recent interviews of Americans by Canadian press and radio, it seems that most Americans actually don't know what Canada's position is (and probably don't care). Groverat, however, seems to be obsessed with Canada. Is someone slipping maple syrup into his shaving cream?
Comments
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
Tulkas, I didn't mean "OTHER VOICES" as those that agree with. I'd expect you'd have higher standards for me. Guess I'll have to prove you wrong. I meant other voices, other than Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney the men virtually behind this move and regime change, and PNAC.
Since those are the policy advisors, what did you then mean "OTHER VOICES" to speak to the policy advisors? You mean he should have other policy advisors, I think. He is president, he can have who he wants as advisors. My opinion of you is fine.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I had a point about Celluci being that he is an Ambassador which gives him particular duty but I think you lost that in between your "superior" ears.
Daliwal presented it as official govenment position. Fine, if he was presenting public opinion on world events, as our natural resources minister, and that is ok, why is not ok that the ambasador, who's position actually involves relations between the 2 nations, speaks about his believe about American concerns?
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
No I don't expect the US to say anything in fact why didn't Celluci do just that? You're characterising me as wanting the US to love the hell out us and such but I never said that did I?
Perhaps because he thought the Canadian people might actually want to hear an opinion of an actual US govenment official on the matter. If he has discussed it privately with Chretien, as the PM would have preferred, do you think the PM would be talking to us about the concerns the US has? And if you expect that he should just keep his mouth shut, about a matter that is his job to be concerned with, why then would not expect the same from Daliwal, whose job is totally unrelated?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Tulkas Tulkas Tulkas Tulkas!
Tulkas invented the wheel!
Tulkas runs Apple!
Tulkas Tulkas Tulkas
30 lashes for me.
Originally posted by groverat
Canada can do whatever Canada wants. Be pro-war, be anti-war, whatever. That's fine.
If that's really your view, it is more enlightened than that of the conservative politicians and press in Canada. Their view seems to be that Canada has an obligation to support the US decision to go to war, regardless of whether we think that it is right. It is amazing the degree to which the debate up here does not concern the merit (or lack of merit) in the American position, but a perceived automatic obligation to fall in line with whatever the US decides regardless of its merits.
Originally posted by groverat
I'm obsessed with you for some reason. I like your handle so much I want to type it any chance I get.
Tulkas Tulkas Tulkas Tulkas!
Tulkas invented the wheel!
Tulkas runs Apple!
Tulkas Tulkas Tulkas
30 lashes for me.
OK, now you're just turning me on
Originally posted by groverat
Please tell me of another time such superior power was used so hesitantly and precisely in history.
Our 'precise' munitions aren't as 'precise' as you would like to believe. Troops on the ground are far better than guided missiles. Bush is doing a better job than he did in Afghanistan, but this does not mean 'Shock & Awe' was a good thing.
Originally posted by Groverat:
What other choice do you have? Can you enforce your will on anyone? Of course not.
Er... the rest of the world considers this sort of thing a last resort. As a defence of the 'superiority' of your nation over Canada it's not exactly, you know, a winner.
But really now... Who cares? What are we gonna contribute with our military? Troops that can't afford the right color uniform? And what exactly are we gonna do once the US has made up it's mind? Nothing. The sooner Canada recalls ALL troops and puts them to work on the border and the coasts, the better. Let the USA police the world. Peace keeping is a sham anyway, and I don't see why I have to pay money to keep patching up people who just want to kill each other the second we turn away. Fvck 'em.
I worry about NAFTA, we're getting reamed. Let's back out and let the corporations fend fo themselves. It's threatening our natural resource policies, our domestic policies and is at the root of the attack on public health care.
Mebbe the country is lost, and Canada is unsustainable, if so, then let's have harmonized currency NOW so the rest of my buying power doesn't go out the window with the aftermath of Mulroney. Yes Mulroney. It's become fashionable to blame Trudeau and then Chretien, but Mulroney spent twice as much as Trudeau in half as many years while he gleefully sewed the seeds of our undoing.
Ah Fvck! I don't give a shit, just gimme my cheap goods, keep the terrorists out of my country and my money out of their countries and leave me alone to drink beer on the weekends. Damn bastard Yankees, Canucks, leftist, rightist federalist, seperatists... ists ists ists. Fvck you all!
Originally posted by Matsu
Let's not forget also, that on 9-11 it was Canada that came to the aid of the US, with a massive redirection of planes to Canadian airports in the minutes following the 2nd and 3rd strikes. If there were more terrorists in the air, we took a big risk, which was resoundly overlooked by Bush in just about every public adress afterwards.
Exactly. Whether we fall in line or not, Bush's opinion of Canada will never change.
Originally posted by satchmo
Exactly. Whether we fall in line or not, Bush's opinion of Canada will never change.
What is Bush's opinion of Canada?
Originally posted by satchmo
Exactly. Whether we fall in line or not, Bush's opinion of Canada will never change.
This is all silly. Canda shouldn't feel especially bad.
This administration does not give a toss about what you think of it or what it does.
It doesn't matter if you're Canada, Mexico, Belgium or Britain.
It
does
not
give
a
damn
about
you.
Canada can do whatever Canada wants. Be pro-war, be anti-war, whatever. That's fine. Just try to keep from insulting us and bashing us for maybe 20 seconds. Keep it to one incident a month if you can.
I'm curious that you're even offended by the comments of Canadians since in your words, we're "not important".
Originally posted by satchmo
I'm curious that you're even offended by the comments of Canadians since in your words, we're "not important".
I'm still trying to figure out why Chirac was considered such a beast for speaking out against the Eastern European countries while it's perfectly OK for the Bush administration to lambast our northernly neighbors.
I'm curious that you're even offended by the comments of Canadians since in your words, we're "not important".
Why would those two things be mutually exclusive?
bunge:
I'm still trying to figure out why Chirac was considered such a beast for speaking out against the Eastern European countries while it's perfectly OK for the Bush administration to lambast our northernly neighbors.
Did the Bush administration "lambast" Canada?
Originally posted by groverat
Did the Bush administration "lambast" Canada?
Avoid the question for as long as you like, and in the meantime come up with a word you feel more comfortable using.
satchmo:
Good news for you in our contest.
The Guardian sez Iraq sez we've killed 350 innocent babies so far with our dirty bombs.
For the duration of the war so far (8 days).
War: 350 civilians
Sanctions: 2192 civilians
I'll catch up some day, I swear it!
Originally posted by groverat
The Guardian sez Iraq sez we've killed 350 innocent babies so far with our dirty bombs.
For the duration of the war so far (8 days).
War: 350 civilians
Sanctions: 2192 civilians
War: the U.S. (and Britain) has murdered 350 civilians.
Sanctions: Saddam has murdered 2192 civilians.
Nice.
Originally posted by bunge
War: the U.S. (and Britain) has murdered 350 civilians.
Sanctions: Saddam has murdered 2192 civilians.
Nice.
Ah, so the UN bears no responsibility for the sanctions? heh
Saddam & the UN (including the US) are complicit in the sanctions slaughter.