I am wondering what everyone opinon on the PM of Canada and his recent coments. For those of you who have been living under a rock for the last few weeks, he said something to the effect of "Americans brought Sept 11 on there selfs." also something about the Western world owing something to the third world countrys or some nonsence.

I think it was 83% of people in Canada agreed with him.

People interpited his statements as America should stop sticking their noise in other peoples bussiness.

But I wonder if thats what he really ment by it. Maybe he ment Americans brought it on thereselfs by the low security.

Wait no, I take that back, he doesnt have any right to critize other countrys security policys considering how riduclously wide open Canada is.

Also thought I would through this in, there was a former goverment offical on Fox News who was talking about Canadas military, and said something like "Canadas Military is falling apart, because the goverment doesnt pay enough attention to it, they dont see a need because America does it all."

That left me pretty speechless.

And BTW, I know I probably spelled his name wrong, and probably mis quoted the goverment offical pretty bad. But hey, I got my point across. I hope.

Well I think that he's doing a good job as Prime MInister. The only stupid thing he's done so far IMHO is that he sacked his Finance Minister. There was going to be a big leadership race because of that but It's settled now.

And well America has techinacally been sticking there noses in people's business but I think that it is good that they do that. They've gotten rid of the vile Taliban governmetn and brought freedom to the Afghani people.

Canada's military is a joke though, we have extremely few soldiers and materiel. But we don't really have any enemies though, I mean when was the last time Canada invaded a country and overthrew its government etc.

I gained alot more respect for Chretien after i heard that he made those comments. It took balls to say it and for once i liked hearing a politician say something he knew would get him trouble but also something he believed in.

He never said "Americans brought september 11 on themselves."

Among the things he said were:

"You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others, That is what the Western world - not only the Americans, the Western world - has to realize. I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits."

By the attacks on September 11th he meant the animosity that the terrorists obviously feel was spawned from the western worlds self-satisfied and greedy actions. By that token thats not saying that "Amercians brought September 11th on themselves." But that Canada did to.. and Europe.. That the western world did.

I agree with him.

We are all living in a world here afterall and the west should be doing more for the underdeveloped nations. At least thats what i think. World without borders.

[ 09-19-2002, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

I was wondering when you wear going to reply ;)

I can see where hes coming from, but I still dont agree with him. I mean for the most part third world countrys are third world countrys becayse either

A: Dictatorship

or

B:They dont try not to become a third world country.

And who is he to call us greedy. Just becasue we enjoy luxerious doesnt make us greedy. And America is the only wetsern country who even trys to least bit to help, as far as I know. As a state anyway.

When we the last time Canada sent money to some less fortunant country? How about France? Germany?

Dont get me wrong, I am not insulting Candains. I dont know that much about their goverment really.

But I do know that Chretiens statments were kind of silly and, to and extent, disrespectful.

[ 09-19-2002, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

B? I don't think it's a matter of trying for an undeveloped countries not being able to become one. That is a bit of a judgement call. I would prefer to think that they do not have the resources to do it.
One reason they do not have the resources is because all of their goods are being exported or perhaps they don't have any coveted resources at all. And another could be because the revenue of their exports is being stolen by their leaders. Which would make them A.

But does it make us decadent? I don't think that's a good thing. Is sharing a good thing? America is not the only western country who even trys to least bit to help.

Heres an article. It's got some comments about Chretiens speech to the UN. Down near the bottom are his comments on the New Economic Partnership for African Development. NEPAD i guess it's called. That qualifies as help. Yes the U.S is a big part of the plan, but their the biggest part of everything in every way, military wise and economics wise. I'm sure i could find billions of other articles on what France, Germany do to help as well. Not every nation has as much to give.

I don't think they were disrepectful at all. He never insulted the U.S.A. He tried to give the world a wakeup call. I know the logistics are pretty cosmic scaled. But come on Share the wealth. Maybe their would be no rich anywhere? But one big middle class? Hmmm thats getting into dangerous territory. And i find it hard to believe that once anyone gets rich.. that they will give it all to charity.. that concept is right out of Hollywood.

[ 09-19-2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Well I just think it was pointless. I mean what wear those statments going to get done politcly? Beside piss Americans off. He basicly called the victums of Spet 11th greedy.

What do you mean share the wealth? America is the one sending billions of dollars to other countrys. Who dont even aprecate it.

As far as Africa goes, that whole continet is a mess. No mater how much the west helps, its up to them in the end.

I don't think it was pointless. It's drawn attention to the poor. He did not call the victims of Sept 11th greedy. But hey what the hell do 83% percent of Canadians know. The only thing more than 83% that we agree on is probably hockey. (I'm listening to Canucks preseason in Winnipeg vs. Edmonton right now on internet radio). What were those statements going to get done politically? What was going to get done politically if he never made them? Better to try to get it done politically. I do not think he was calling the victims of Sept. 11th greedy at all. What possible reason would he have for doing that? Frankly imo to interpret what he said as an insult to the west is callous in itself and serves only to bring greater credibility to what he said.

America is the not the only one sending billions of dollars to other countries. I don't know if other countries do not appreciate it or not.

As far as Africa goes.. what do you suggest? 1.) Do nothing and let it deteriorate into even greater chaos? 2.) Or try to bring them back into the world community even if it means having to help? I vote for the second.

Yeah, well Chretien's an idiot.

Let me tell you the Story of the EH-101...this was slated to be the replacement for the aging (and falling apart) Sea King helicopters the Canadian Armed Forces have been forced to make do with for years. Unfortunately, the Conservative government just previous to the current Liberal government was responsible for starting the program, and of course the Liberals just couldn't accept THAT! So they cancelled it...to the tune of a $500 million penalty, and they STILL have to find a replacement because the Sea Kings are literally a pile of loose parts flying in close formation. So now the Liberals have to scramble to replace the EH-101 with something else.

Guess what they end up with? The exact same helicopter, from the exact same manufacturer, with LESS capability for MORE money! Not only that, but the program will be delayed for an additional five years because it was cancelled...what a bunch of knobs...

B? I don't think it's a matter of trying for an undeveloped countries not being able to become one. That is a bit of a judgement call. I would prefer to think that they do not have the resources to do it.
One reason they do not have the resources is because all of their goods are being exported or perhaps they don't have any coveted resources at all. And another could be because the revenue of their exports is being stolen by their leaders. Which would make them A.
</font>[/QUOTE]The vast majority of third world countries are that way because they have a power elite (ie., dictatorship) that's keeping them from progressing. This is overwhelmingly apparent in Africa, with all the tinpot dictators intercepting all the international aid shipments and either diverting them to military use or prventing the public from recieving it, letting it rot on the loading docks "because weapons might be hidden in it".

Another factor that's present, especially in Asia, is the eastern desire for stability over the western ideals of progress. China has always been a water empire, and won't change anytime soon -- the private individual has always come last in thise societies.

I don't think it was pointless. It's drawn attention to the poor. He did not call the victims of Sept 11th greedy. But hey what the hell do 83% percent of Canadians know. The only thing more than 83% that we agree on is probably hockey. (I'm listening to Canucks preseason in Winnipeg vs. Edmonton right now on internet radio). What were those statements going to get done politically? What was going to get done politically if he never made them? Better to try to get it done politically. I do not think he was calling the victims of Sept. 11th greedy at all. What possible reason would he have for doing that? Frankly imo to interpret what he said as an insult to the west is callous in itself and serves only to bring greater credibility to what he said.

America is the not the only one sending billions of dollars to other countries. I don't know if other countries do not appreciate it or not.

As far as Africa goes.. what do you suggest? 1.) Do nothing and let it deteriorate into even greater chaos? 2.) Or try to bring them back into the world community even if it means having to help? I vote for the second.</font>[/QUOTE]Well each to their own. I am conservitive, your a liberal, we will always disagree on most things. Even hockey teams (Go WINGS!) .

As for Africa, I think they will have to help there self, and the west help as well. Take all the STDs over there for example.

We can send allthe money we want, it wont do anygood. Its up the the people of Africa to use protection. We cant make them use it can we?

I cant find the Stars game anywhere :( Ah well.