U.S. envoy chides Canada

[Masklinn]

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?

Yes it does matter. Where you are playing with diplomacy you HAVE to make a difference between official and non-official statements...I mean, that's the base of diplomacy.

Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" remark wasn't officially sanctioned terminology, but I don't remember anyone ignoring it.

Rumsfeld is the Defense Secretary in the current USA governement, therefor everything he will say publicly will be official and will be treated as such.

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.

'Cause one is non-official while the other is, it makes a huge difference.
Now maybe one of these Canadian statesmen is in the current Canada Government. I don't know much about Canada Govt beside that the prime minister has a french sounding name

[ 03-26-2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Ronn_Bman]

I find it weird that we argue over whether these term are acceptable or not, while it seems to be accepted that the US official saying the US was "disappointed" was somehow wrong. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

So Masklinn, I'll just disagree with you because you appear to be arbitrarily deciding what is ok and what isn't ok. You also seem to deciding what is official and what isn't. No matter how you try to justify or excuse their statements, they were wrong and should be easily seen by everyone as unacceptable.

The "bastard" and "failed statesmen" both come from Canadian government officials. Their governmental titles are clearly listed in the article, and I've quoted them earlier in this thread.

[Masklinn]

Ah Ronn, don't make me lie. I'm not trying to find excuse or say that it's acceptable.

"Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish" - I m sorry I don't know what MP stands for

"Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal" - Ok I haven't seen that, this guy is indeed part of the governement. Though I don't know if words from Natural Ressources Minister can be taken as being official in a foreign business...

But ok, seeing that and the fact that the word "betrayed" didnt appear in the official message, I can agree with you, US govt has the right to state that ""there is a lot of disappointment in Washington".

But keep in mind that this is an official message sent from a govt to another through an ambassador (can't find something more official) about a difference of opinion. It weights way more than the words of two clowns that can't keep their mouth shut.

To sum up : I was NOT trying to find excuses, I was not saying it's "ok" but I was just trying to show you that you can't compare since these statements and ambassador words do not have ,at all, the same weight on the official diplomacy between the two countries.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Animal: It's not surprising. Maybe we should give Bush 48hrs notice to pay California's $300 million debt to BC Hyrdo. 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?

Maybe he could just give California to Canada and consider the debt cleared? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Ah Ronn, don't make me lie. I'm not trying to find excuse or say that it's acceptable. "Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish" - I m sorry I don't know what MP stands for I will admit, I still don't know what MP stands for. I do know she is a member of the House of Commons, or it's Canadian equivalent. "Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal" - Ok I haven't seen that, this guy is indeed part of the governement. Though I don't know if words from Natural Ressources Minister can be taken as being official in a foreign business... See, this is what I'm talking about. I know your not lying about anything, but let's not downplay anything either. Wrong is wrong. This position sounds like the equivalent of a US Cabinet level position. Rumsfeld's position is in the Cabinet. But ok, seeing that and the fact that the word "betrayed" didnt appear in the official message, I can agree with you, US govt has the right to state that ""there is a lot of disappointment in Washington". But keep in mind that this is an official message sent from a govt to another through an ambassador (can't find something more official) about a difference of opinion. It weights way more than the words of two clowns that can't keep their mouth shut. But it is a diplomatic message. This is how government communicate on an official basis. Many such messages have been exchanged between all the nations involved, from all sides of the issue. Many have not been nearly as diplomatic as this one. To sum up : I was NOT trying to find excuses, I was not saying it's "ok" but I was just trying to show you that you can't compare since these statements and ambassador words do not have ,at all, the same weight on the official diplomacy between the two countries. But you see, I can compare them. Democratic governments do not speak with only one voice. For good or bad, the words of the upper levels of government carry weight. Would you make the same argument if Rumsfeld said, "The French.... I hate those bastards" ? "Americans.... I hate those bastards" is an exact quote of the statement the MP made. The MP who is a leader in the House of Commons. You may not be making excuses, but you are consistently explaining how it is somehow different. To me, wrong is just wrong.

[Donut]

Bloody foreigners!

MP = Member of Parliament.

[Ronn_Bman]

Thanks Donut. I looked at a dozen articles and not one of them mentioned it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Don't you think 'Failed Statesmen' describes him pretty well?

Virtually every nation on Earth was behind the United States after Sept. 11th. Everyone sympathetic and willing to contribute to the war on terrorism. In a short year and a half Bush's policies have divided the world. He turned worldwide well-being and a willingness to work with the United States into contempt. If that isn't bad statesmanship then someone please explain to me exactly what it takes to become a failed statesmen.

Regardless of that however.. I apologize to the USA in particular for the booing of the National Anthem at the hockey game in Montreal. I will tell you that Jean Beliveau, a legendary Habs player, had a message at the next game to the fans and the US Anthem was greatly cheered.

As far as Dhaliwal and whats-her-name.. the response from Celluci was warranted imo. Those two should have kept their mouths shut.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Don't you think 'Failed Statesmen' describes him pretty well?

No I don't. I believe he and the administration tried quite diligently to convince the other nations of the need to disarm Iraq, but it didn't work. Quite a few nations were convinced though.

Even if you believe that he is a failed statesman, references like that in diplomatic circles are not considered friendly and are counter productive. I honestly don't care what the guy said, but I think it's silly to ignore those statements and pretend that there was something malicious about US official's statement regarding the Canadian position being "disappointing" to the US.

[ 03-26-2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: but it didn't work.

Sounds like failure to me..

but your right about pretending their was something malicious about the us officials statement. And as i said in the post above. I don't think what Celluci said was malicious. It was totally warranted. [img]smile.gif[/img]