U.S. envoy chides Canada

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: 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.

I'd disagree with this statement. Everyone was sympathic. But when it came time to take on the Taliban in Afghanistan, a lot of nations stopped being "behind" us. Most of our allies then, are the same allies as now. I'd say it was a short month, instead of a short year and a half.

We took as much criticism then as we are now. I read a lot of statements from individuals from other countries, talk about how wrong we were then. A lot of them on this board even. Nothing has changed since then.

[Sir Taliesin]

[quote]Originally posted by Masklinn:

Bush was diplomatic ?

What was Chiroc, with his criticism of the Eastern European Countries for siding with the US? He was anything but diplomatic, even threating some countries with not being considered for joining the EU. BTW when did the rest of Europe go and elect him leader and spokesperson of the EU?

Kind of reminded me of Ole Al Haig when Reagon got shot and he thought he was in charge!

[Djinn Raffo]

Canada was for action in Afghanistan Sir T. We did not stop being behind you then. And i am pretty sure that Germany and France were for action there as well weren't they?

The majority here were for going into Afghanistan and Canada sent forces their to participate.

Going into Iraq is where the division exploded.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: It's not discriminatory. Don't close your eyes cause it serves your purpose. I've been saying that same thing to you throughout this thread. Cause having the majority with you and a veto against you is way more different than not having the majority + a veto. I know it, you know it, Bush knew it and that's why he didn't even bother. An 18th resolution wasn't necessary, but I would have liked to have seen the vote, but why bother when Chirac promised to VETO it no matter what? You see, Chirac wasn't interested in a vote either because he was afraid there might be a majority with the US and France's VETO would have been ignored. That's why he so publically stated that France would VETO a new resolution before he even saw it. Political pressure on those who were undecided. It didn't come to a vote because Chirac's political moves ensured it. Chirac did not want a vote. You know and I know it. I didnt talk about that at all. I talked about countries that NEED support of the US for various reasons. Countries for which political pressures was not needed. Political pressure exist on both side and they're part of the diplomatic process. You most certainly did do that earlier in this very thread. You said nations went along because they "just don't wanna risk to 'disappoint'" the US. If that didn't imply they were afraid they'd fall from favor and lose political standing, what exactly did it mean? Yes political pressure does exist on both sides and it is part of the diplomatic process, but you only seem interested in believing it's legitimate when that pressure is from your side. Bush was diplomatic ? Manicheist (good vs evil) propaganda is diplomatic for you ? What was diplomatic was saying that each nation had a right to choose, that each nation had a right to stand for what they believe in. What he did not do was publically tell those who opposed him to "shut up" and say that they "were not well brought up". No offense intended but that sounds like an awful mix between Rambo and Joan of Arc, like a big cliché.

Well, I haven't been impressed with everything you've said either. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

You wanna call it a draw or shall we continue to type to the death.

[Masklinn]

i call it a draw
We're both too conditioned by our environment, culture and education. None of us can win.
But we can expose politely our different thoughts. I enjoy that

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: i call it a draw We're both too conditioned by our environment, culture and education. None of us can win. But we can expose politely our different thoughts. I enjoy that

Me too, but I think I'm developing carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Canada was for action in Afghanistan Sir T. We did not stop being behind you then. And i am pretty sure that Germany and France were for action there as well weren't they? The majority here were for going into Afghanistan and Canada sent forces their to participate. Going into Iraq is where the division exploded.

I stand corrected in the case of Canada and Germany, who also sent troops to help occupy Kabal. However, you have to admit that many here at IW were completely against us going in and I also believe a large precentage of the populations of other countries were against it as well. I can remember MANY extremely heated discussions among members here (some of who are no longer with us) about it. That was the beginning of the end.

edit: I also must add in the cases of Canada and Germany, that both countries also lost troops there. I take my hat of to both!!!

[ 03-26-2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: For those who have jumped straight to the last page, the premise of this thread was that the US had somehow done something wrong because a US official told a Canadian official that the US was "disappointed" with the Canadian position on Iraq.

Well there you go - I thought the premise was that the US is happy with those that support it and unhappy with those that aren't and they aren't willing to disguise that fact with too much diplomacy - by the way, does anyone seem surprised or upset with that?.

I don't see that the US has done anything wrong at all, but the administration needs to have a think about what it wants to do with the other 70% of the world that aren't 100% (or judging by internal polling in countries at war, that average should be about 60%) behind this war. I ask you, should the US be reactionary in response and carry on like a pork chop at the other countries, or would they be bettter to just accept that their position as not being universally loved at the moment and get on with the business at hand.

By the way, the reactionary part and the carry on like a pork chop also applies to those governments of countries that disagree with the US position on the war. Relationships between countries are going to meed a lot of mending after this is all over, and that may require several additional regime changes at the ballot boxes of the world.

[pritchke]

I think the main problem with the relationship is Chretien and Bush don't see eye to eye. Chretien and Clinten played alot of golf together. Anyway this article shows some of the rudeness and snubs by the government that have affected the relation ship. Also during the US election Chretian stated "I hope Gore wins." So it was pretty bad from the start. Relationships will start to improve again after our regime changes.

Canada's best opportunity for repairing the breach with the U.S. will come once the regime changes in Ottawa. Chretien and Bush never did see eye to eye on most things, but that could change if Paul Martin wins the Liberal leadership.

http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...er/57342.shtml

[pritchke]

Here is a recent snub from a french Senator, but Chretien reprimand it.
---------------------------------------------------------

"Screw the Americans," Laurier LaPierre was quoted as saying in Tuesday's official record of Senate proceedings. The remark, made during an impassioned defence of the United States by Conservative Senator John Buchanan, prompted a tentative apology from Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

LaPierre denied he made the remark, claiming he said: "So do the Americans."

But that quote didn't appear to fit what Buchanan was saying at the time. It's rare for hansard to quote anyone unless their remarks are perfectly clear.

"If this was said, it is completely reprehensible," Chretien told the House. "I was not aware of it and, if it was said, I reprimand that.

"I don't think it is acceptable to have language like that."
---------------------------------------------
Didn't Buchanan recently make a speech on Canadian being Canukinstien? I believe ssnubs have been coming from both sides of the border.