Flip flopping indeed."These flip-flops are not going to go unnoticed," Harper said. "When will this government do the right thing and back our American friends and allies because, frankly, sir, you are embarrassing us."
[Chretien] lends credence to that idea."But being an independent and sovereign nation sometimes we can disagree and remain good friends."
I don't care about Quebec so let's go with the other number. I believet that that 60% of Canadians simply don't know any better because they live in such a suffocating liberal bubble.Originally posted by: desy
Canadians don't want to go to war
Haven't you figured that out yet?
All polls excluding Quebec are 60% against without UN approval 80% in Quebec
Quit flogging a dead horse, we are out end of story.
Harper is a separtist a$$hat, just look at his work with the NCC or look up the Gang of six from Calgary in google.
And there won't be.There is no international agreement on who should run the country or how Iraq will be rebuilt after the war, Graham said. "It's only by a multilateral and broadly based approach that we're going to successfully deal with the aftermath of the conflict."
. That was also a week ago. If anything Canadians support joining the US effort at this point more than before.The Ekos Research poll showed 41 per cent of Canadians are against an attack, while 40 per cent remain in favour.
Yep, that's the guy Canada elected last election."The prime minister is being dangerously ambiguous as to what Canada's position would be... No one knows where Canada stands. Our allies don't know, our citizens don't know, (Chrétien's) own government doesn't know."
? Joe Clark, Conservative leader
Jan. 26, 2003
On Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said his government is "supportive of the United States' desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein."
I believe that that 60% of Canadians simply don't know any better because they live in such a suffocating liberal bubble.
I've still yet to really hear any argument worth much on why Canada shouldn't go along with the US at this point.
The UK has a leader who isn't a slave to gallup polls.
That's a purely subjective argument. From what anti-war sentiment I've heard from Canadians they most definitely are not more informed - because they still think that the UN was going to get something done. You know what the UN would have done if anything? Approve a second resolution. Well the US is doing what that second resolution would have done.Right... Canadians are better informed than Americans on the subject. CBC and others are some of the most informative broadcasts you can get.
Yes of course he's Bush's donkey isn't he? Fact is Canada is a slave to the UN, just like most of the other countries in the world that don't have any real power on their own.He's a slave to Bush instead.
Originally posted by: Phuz
I believe that that 60% of Canadians simply don't know any better because they live in such a suffocating liberal bubble.
Right... Canadians are better informed than Americans on the subject. CBC and others are some of the most informative broadcasts you can get. At least people here aren't glued to CNN/FOX news getting all hyped up on the crap they spew.
I've still yet to really hear any argument worth much on why Canada shouldn't go along with the US at this point.
Sure you have... you just don't agree with any of them.
The UK has a leader who isn't a slave to gallup polls.
You're right. He's a slave to Bush instead. He screwed himself by going with this war. Do you really think that the general public is so sheltered and isolated from politics and current events that their opinion is totally invalid? His entire country is against a war, and he's a good leader because he decided to send his country to war? He would have been better off listening to the people of his country. Blair even said that when the war is over he'd have to re-evalutate their relationship with American and foreign policy.
That's a purely subjective argument. From what anti-war sentiment I've heard from Canadians they most definitely are not more informed - because they still think that the UN was going to get something done. You know what the UN would have done if anything? Approve a second resolution. Well the US is doing what that second resolution would have done.
Yes of course he's Bush's donkey isn't he? Fact is Canada is a slave to the UN, just like most of the other countries in the world that don't have any real power on their own.
Anti-Canada sentiment in the US has grown, and not to the benefit of the US. What's the point of Canada not going along here? To feel special and because it's fun to say no to the US?
so the real fact of the matter is that Canada is not acting as a single decision making force, but rather a slave of the UN.
Boy you really are ignorant, aren't you. Thankfully, we don't have idiots like you in power. Oh wait, we did at one point.
Well I read things on CBC from time to time and have yet to come upon any ground breaking information that other news networks aren't reporting.It isn't subjective at all. I watch FOX/CNN news and I'm in total disbelief. Absolutely unbelievable.
That's exactly what it means if by "couldn't get results as fast" you're referring to more than a decade. Do you realize that when the original cease fire was initiated Iraq had a number of DAYS to do what the UN specified? then 12 years later and more than a dozen resolutions later Iraq was still not in compliance. And you're really going to sit there and tell me that the UN works or was working? Working doing what? It's been 12 years?!Just because the UN couldn't get results as fast as people watching this drama would have liked, does not mean it doesn't work.
Neither is the US. The last resolution specified serious consequences. Just because they are now attacking without UN approval doesn't mean it's illegitimate. By UN standards perhaps, but then read what I said above and you'll realize that UN standards aren't really meaningful are they?We're not the ones initiating wars illegitimately.
Well I read things on CBC from time to time and have yet to come upon any ground breaking information that other news networks aren't reporting.
That's exactly what it means if by "couldn't get results as fast" you're referring to more than a decade. Do you realize that when the original cease fire was initiated Iraq had a number of DAYS to do what the UN specified? then 12 years later and more than a dozen resolutions later Iraq was still not in compliance. And you're really going to sit there and tell me that the UN works or was working? Working doing what? It's been 12 years?!
Neither is the US. The last resolution specified serious consequences. Just because they are now attacking without UN approval doesn't mean it's illegitimate. By UN standards perhaps, but then read what I said above and you'll realize that UN standards aren't really meaningful are they?
While the UN continued to dick around more and more iraqis were being killed every year by their government. Does that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?
But of course you have no advice on what would have been better, other than to say with UN approval - which was evidently not going to occur.You've misconceived my stance on the war... a ... lot. I'm not against a regime change, I'm against the way this war has been carried out.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Oh yeah, and Iraq has already launched at least one missile that was banned (it went 190 km). Yeah the UN was making great progress
Have to agree with this. me and a buddy were actually laughing out loud when the local fox channel broadcasted foxnews during the first day or two of the war. It was a total and utter joke...I couldn't believe how blatantly biased it was. The whole broadcast seemed like half opinion of the damn newscasters, and half actual fact.It isn't about 'ground breaking information'. Its about truthful, no biased news reports. I heard so many misconstrued, rediculously out-of-touch reports from FOX... the casualty numbers from reported incidents were changing by the hour... why, because they'll air just about anything without caring much of the validity. But usually by the 2-3rd day of reporting it they've at least found a number to stay with.
Originally posted by: kami
But since Canada is already supporting the US unofficially overseas, I don't see why the gov't doesn't at least recognize that. Even if we weren't, isn't the fact that we're helping on the war against terrorism enough (with our very limited resources)? Not only that, but when the war is over canada will probably operate a large peacekeeping force over there since the US has invested $0.00 into peacekeeping but this is what canada is known for.
I'd be willing to bet that JTF2 has been in there since the start (or before).
The Canadian government didn't publicly acknowledge them until the Afghanistan situation. I can understand why they still are very hush about it.
peacekeeping force over there since the US has invested $0.00 into peacekeeping but this is what canada is known for.[/
Exactly.
Originally posted by: kami
Have to agree with this. me and a buddy were actually laughing out loud when the local fox channel broadcasted foxnews during the first day or two of the war. It was a total and utter joke...I couldn't believe how blatantly biased it was. The whole broadcast seemed like half opinion of the damn newscasters, and half actual fact.
BIG difference between that and supporting sending troops now that the war has already begun. I think most people think it would have been better with UN approval. All that poll says is that the Canadians did not want the war without un resolution, but it doesn't say that they don't support sending troops now that it's begun anyway.Polls reported over the past few months, including those conducted for The Globe and Mail, have consistently suggested that two-thirds of Canadians did not want the war unless it was sanctioned by the United Nations
Originally posted by: Skoorb
BIG difference between that and supporting sending troops now that the war has already begun. I think most people think it would have been better with UN approval. All that poll says is that the Canadians did not want the war without un resolution, but it doesn't say that they don't support sending troops now that it's begun anyway.Polls reported over the past few months, including those conducted for The Globe and Mail, have consistently suggested that two-thirds of Canadians did not want the war unless it was sanctioned by the United Nations
Indeed. Show us your solution.Originally posted by: Skoorb
But of course you have no advice on what would have been better, other than to say with UN approval - which was evidently not going to occur.You've misconceived my stance on the war... a ... lot. I'm not against a regime change, I'm against the way this war has been carried out.