U.S. envoy chides Canada

[Animal]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: 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?

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. [/QUOTE]And both sides did voice their opinion's.

It still doesn't change the fact that's is somewhat "heavy handed" diplomacy. It would be akin to me posting "Ronn, I'm very upset and disappointed that you didn't agree with me on that last thread." Although I'd probably get a beat down from the mods, and I wouldn't post something like that anyway.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: Do I care about anyone chiding US policy? It has nothing to do with news story I posted.

Well Mark, your post was specifically about the US "chiding" the Canadian policy on Iraq because we disagree with it, so I think it IS absolutely fair to ask if you feel the same about people "chiding" the US policy. Either it's ok to "chide" any government's policy, or it isn't ok to "chide" any government's policy.

[ 03-25-2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[pritchke]

I am on our side Animal and the right for our country to make a decision as an independent nation. Just posted that to cool down the critics as they probaly don't realize we are doing more then they might think even if it is indirectly. As well we are still supporting the war on terrorism.

[ 03-25-2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Animal]

Originally posted by pritchke: I am on our side Animal and the right for our country to make a decision as an independent nation. Just posted that to cool down the critics as they probaly don't realize we are doing more then they might think even if it is indirectly. As well we are still supporting the war on terrorism.

I deleted that post actually, because it came off rather badly as it was intended as a joke. My appologies.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Animal: And both sides did voice their opinion's. It still doesn't change the fact that's is somewhat "heavy handed" diplomacy. It would be akin to me posting "Ronn, I'm very upset and disappointed that you didn't agree with me on that last thread." Although I'd probably get a beat down from the mods, and I wouldn't post something like that anyway.

No Animal, it's not the same as that.

You would NOT be "beat down" by the mods for making that very mild statement towards me or my opinion, nor for making it towards anyone else. If you were, I would have to object on your behalf. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The way nations interact and the way individuals interact is quite different, and we all know it. If nations interacted the way people do, there would be nothing but war in the world, and if individual interacted the way nations do, people would wonder what the heck was being said, and would result to punching each other in the nose because they think they might have been treated rudely. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway, Goodnight guys... See you in the morning.

[Larry_OHF]

Ronn, you gotta love it when people imply an obvious opinion on a matter, then when you approach them on that very implication, they suggest that no implication existed, and how dare you suggest that they implied such a thought!

By the way...this in no way implies anything,
nor is it suggestive or any opinion on my part.

[Davros]

Well I thought it was a good point Mark - let's not pretend here guys and gals, your US President is very happy with those that are supporting him and disappointed with those that aren't. Sounds a bit like life in politics really doesn't it? Surely there is no need to be surprised at that, or to feel any sense of outrage when the obvious is pointed out.

[skywalker]

Maybe I just see it differently. It looks to me like this administration wants to get it's ducks all in a row.

Group A is all the nations that are with us.

Group B is all the ones against us.

Now that we have that figured out, we can inform them about their status and give them a chance to "come around". If not we have ways to "take care" of them.

It all comes back to Bush being a great uniter of people...he continues to unite other nations against us. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Mark

[ 03-26-2003, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Masklinn]

"Betrayed" and "Disappointed"...the exact same words my mom was telling me when I did something bad.

US should stop acting like that with countries that dont agree with them...that just can't work.

[Ronn_Bman]

The article says betrayed, but none of the quotes from American officials reflect that strong language. Here is the quote... "there is a lot of disappointment in Washington and a lot of people are upset"

I noticed that no one mentioned "The labelling of Americans as 'bastards' by Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish, and the suggestion by Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal that U.S. President George W. Bush is a failed statesman".

We can't say we're disappointed with their government's actions, but they can complain that the leader of our government is a failed statesman? Seems like a double standard to me.

I, for one, would also think having "disappointment" expressed about a government's position would be considered much more reasonable and diplomatic than calling the people of a nation bastards. Am I'm missing something, or is it a well know and accepted fact that American's actually are bastards?