U.S. envoy chides Canada

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: US should stop acting like that with countries that dont agree with them...that just can't work.

Masklinn, are you suggesting that Chirac and the French government shouldn't say anything about the US position on Iraq?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by 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.

Davros, I don't think Mark had a good point at all. He posted the "supposedly" derogatory statements attributed to the US spokesmen while completely ignoring the derogatory statements made against Americans by Canadian officials.

Bush is happy with some governments and not with others based on their positions? Who's denying that? I'm just expecting some equal treatment. Equal treatment is, by definition, for everyone. Either it's ok for everyone's government to state their opinion on the stance of another government or it is not. If it's not ok for everyone, then I expect everyone to shut up.

[Masklinn]

Masklinn, are you suggesting that Chirac and the French government shouldn't say anything about the US position on Iraq?

There is a difference between "Dude, I don't agree with you" and "Man, you suck".

[Davros]

Shrugs shoulders - well I think I made a valid point then [img]smile.gif[/img] - and I can see your postion Mark [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[skywalker]

Look, I posted an article I read online. I agree with it and stated so. I did not make any of it up. This is my opinion and the article illustrates it well. If anyone wants to point out the other side and post their opinion, that is fine. That is what a forum is about.

These are the parts I added:

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

and

"I like Canada, and I, personally am not disappointed or feeling betrayed, I respect their stance and that they stand by their decision."

Everything else in the post was from the article.

Ronn if you have a problem with the word "betrayed" in the article, take it up with GLORIA GALLOWAY or the Globe and Mail Update.

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: There is a difference between "Dude, I don't agree with you" and "Man, you suck".

Yes there most certainly is.

"There is alot of disappointment" = "Dude, I don't agree with you"

"Bastards", and "failed statesman" = "Man, you suck"

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: Look, I posted an article I read online. I agree with it and stated so. I did not make any of it up. This is my opinion and the article illustrates it well. If anyone wants to point out the other side and post their opinion, that is fine. That is what a forum is about. These are the parts I added: "Do we (US Government) have to slam every country who does not totally agree with pursuing this war with Iraq?" and "I like Canada, and I, personally am not disappointed or feeling betrayed, I respect their stance and that they stand by their decision." Everything else in the post was from the article. Ronn if you have a problem with the word "betrayed" in the article, take it up with GLORIA GALLOWAY or the Globe and Mail Update. Mark

I didn't attribute the betrayed remark to you, I just addressed it as something that was stated about the American position that did not seem to coincide with the quotes given.

Regarding the "slam" statement of those who oppose American views, I will refer to my earlier points about diplomacy. Either everyone has a right to voice their opinion, governments included, or no one has the right.

And I will say again, that calling people "bastards" and the president "a failed statesman" are much more easily seen as "slams" against America than anything the US official said.

You can agree with the article, but I'm not sure how you miss the hypocrisy in it.

[ 03-26-2003, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Masklinn]

Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Masklinn: There is a difference between "Dude, I don't agree with you" and "Man, you suck". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes there most certainly is. "There is alot of disappointment" = "Dude, I don't agree with you" "Bastards", and "failed statesman" = "Man, you suck"

I was more talking of France-USA relationship since you felt the need to start on it. Which is (was - they prefer bashing on russians now) "I don't agree - You suck" kind of talk.

I did not know Canadian statesmen said that kind of things. But was it official ? I mean were they speaking in the name of the Canadian Govt and people ? I don't think so.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: I was more talking of France-USA relationship since you felt the need to start on it. Which is (was - they prefer bashing on russians now) "I don't agree - You suck" kind of talk. If you'd been German, I'd have used Schroeder and the German government as the example. You are French, so please don't think everything I say about the French govenment is because I'm trying to "start on it" again. I'm really, really not. [img]smile.gif[/img] I did not know Canadian statesmen said that kind of things. But was it official ? I mean were they speaking in the name of the Canadian Govt and people ? I don't think so.

The statements were at the bottom of the article. Does it matter if it was official? Should all unoffical remarks by govenment officials be ignored?

Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" remark wasn't officially sanctioned terminology, but I don't remember anyone ignoring it. Let's be fair, if we are going to take what government officials say and talk about it, let's talk about all of it.

Ignoring or making excuses for the Canadian government officials "bastard" and "failed statesmen" comments while focusing on the dreadfully wrong American "disappointed" comment is really hypocritical.

[ 03-26-2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Masklinn: I did not know Canadian statesmen said that kind of things. But was it official ? I mean were they speaking in the name of the Canadian Govt and people ? I don't think so.

As duly elected or appointed Government officials, they ARE "speaking in the name of the Canadian Government" by default. They are the chosen representatives of their Government and their people...so it is natural to assume they are speaking on behalf of those they represent.

I also agree with Ronn that emotions and assertions are being "read into" the statement from both sides. The ambassador's comments certainly did not justify the reporter saying "America feels betrayed by Canada." On the other hand, simply telling someone you disagree with thier position and you're upset about it is NOT the same as "slamming" them.

Again, calling Americans "bastards" or President Bush "a failed statesman" are much more deragatory and closer to being a "slam" than simply saying "We disagree with your position and many people are upset by it".