Do we (US Government) have to slam every country who does not totally agree with pursuing this war with Iraq?

U.S. envoy chides Canada

By GLORIA GALLOWAY
Globe and Mail Update

Toronto — Washington delivered a stern message to Canada on Tuesday, saying Americans feel disappointed and betrayed by the Canadian decision to stay out of the war in Iraq.

At a breakfast speech to the Economic Club of Canada, Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said "there is a lot of disappointment in Washington and a lot of people are upset" about Canada's refusal to join the United States in its efforts to depose Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Rest of the story.

I like Canada, and I, personally am not disappointed or feeling betrayed, I respect their stance and that they stand by their decision. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Mark

[ 03-25-2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

RE: Canadian position-"there is a lot of disappointment in Washington and a lot of people are upset"

I don't find that statement offensive or inappropriate in the least. In fact, to me, it seems quite diplomatic.

Certainly the Canadian government is entitled to it's position... and the US government is entitled to it's position on the Canadian government's position. ;)

The US position on Iraq has been chided by many, is that unacceptable, too, or should everyone simply accept the position of others? ;)

EDIT - I like Canada, too. I also like France and Germany and the majority of the EU and Russia and others who disagree with the US stance on Iraq. I can like them without agreeing with them. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-25-2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

It's not surprising.

Maybe we should give Bush 48hrs notice to pay California's $300 million debt to BC Hyrdo. :D

No wait, that's not going to work...we don't have any armed forces.

Canada did what the majority of Canadians wanted, not getting involved. Chretien stated that he would support the UN had they decided that an armed conflict was necessary, but would not support the US's bid to go alone.
They were willing to go alone, so what'd'ya need us for?

Never said it was offensive, did I Ronn?

I just said that it "seems" the US only likes friends who agree with them. The Bush brand of diplomacy? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Mark

I think you've hit the nail on the head. As far as I'm concerned it's a statement that didn't need to be said. It doesn't offend me, and the US can be as upset and disappointed as they want, but what do they hope to accomplish by announcing it?

This said nothing about "liking" anyone, it made a statement about their policy on the issue. Again I ask, is this any different than those nations who "chided" the US policy? ;)

The same thing the nations who said they opposed US policy hoped to achieve. They made their point of view known. Both sides of an issue have the same right to voice their opinion. ;)

Do I care about anyone chiding US policy? It has nothing to do with the news story I posted.

Mark

[ 03-25-2003, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

*sigh*

If thats Bush's judgement...

Next they'll go to war on Canada for our Water [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D (J.K.)

Ottawa's decision to stay out of the Iraq conflict has also raised questions about Canada's naval role in the Persian Gulf. Cellucci said Canadian warships patrolling the area as part of the war on terrorism could end up intercepting ships heading for Iraq with weapons.

"Ironically, because of the presence in the Persian Gulf, they will provide more support for this war in Iraq indirectly than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us," Cellucci said.

[ 03-25-2003, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]