Where Does Canada Stand?
- Thread starter d2admin
- Start date
Cal Sibley
New member
We've committed troops to Afghanistan, so there aren't a great number left to contribute to action against Iraq. We have several frigates on patrol in the Persian gulf. They will likely be used to protect troop carriers moving in that body of water. We've got some problems working against us in going to war against Iraq. Our Prime Minister, Jean Cretien, is French; Quebec which makes up 1/4 of our population is overwhelmingly French. I think most Canadians are solidly behind you. That doesn't help much in our present situation. We've let our military go to hell in a handbasket in recent years. We don't have much equipment that is recent, and state of the art. I honestly feel we are hiding behind the U.N. banner, and many of us are none too happy about it. Best wishes.
Cal - Montreal
Cal - Montreal
Albertacoyotecaller
Member
I agree that most people in this country support the United States on the war on Terrorism. Unfortunately our government sits on the fence most of the time. I for one am glad that our friends to the south have stepped up to the plate and taken on the responsiblity while others like us blow in the wind.
Albertacoyotecaller
Member
Sorry guys, that last post of mine might have left you confused on where we stand. Right now as many of you might know, we are trying to register all our guns in Canada which probably includes guns that our military uses. LOL. Oh this just came over the news wire, all 5 guns our military owns have just been registered. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Now on a serious note, we cannot commit troops because they are going to be used against the people of Canada to uphold the new gun registration law that almost no other law enforment agency in Canada wants to enforce. HAH
gbernetic@inland.lehighcement.com
gbernetic@inland.lehighcement.com
NY Post excerpt from 3-18-03
Also yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called war a "mistake" and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien declared his troops wouldn't fight alongside U.S.-British forces.
----------------------------------------------
So now what? Boycott Canada? Russia? France, Germany, etc.?
Also yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called war a "mistake" and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien declared his troops wouldn't fight alongside U.S.-British forces.
----------------------------------------------
So now what? Boycott Canada? Russia? France, Germany, etc.?
I don't regard and countries decisin to not join into combat as the same thing as obstructing us.
France has done everything they could to prevent us from handling Iraq. Germany is a mix; while they voted against us in the UN security council, they are still providing equipment to assist our troops in Kuwait.
If Canada doesn't want to commit troops I don't care. The way I see it, others can:
1) Help.
2) Stay out of the way.
3) Get in the way.
Only #3 is a problem. It's been a long time since the French were worth anything anyway.
France has done everything they could to prevent us from handling Iraq. Germany is a mix; while they voted against us in the UN security council, they are still providing equipment to assist our troops in Kuwait.
If Canada doesn't want to commit troops I don't care. The way I see it, others can:
1) Help.
2) Stay out of the way.
3) Get in the way.
Only #3 is a problem. It's been a long time since the French were worth anything anyway.
Well I think I know where they are standing officially. I know of some Can. Hockey players that I wouldn't mind having fight along side of.
Does anyone remember this??
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning! He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience,
"Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of",
Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth." The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore
Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners." However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands,
The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of
State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Makes you wonder what if we acted on Oliver North's advise, and why we are acting now. Bush was called a "Cowboy". Well maybe this "Cowboy" needs to round up some strays.
Darrin /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
187, what you just poseted in a urban myth. Never happened.
Yes, Ollie testified. OBL was not the terrorist named. Someone took what did happen, rewrote it and sent it out.
I despise Gore, but perpetuating fiction doesn't help any.
Yes, Ollie testified. OBL was not the terrorist named. Someone took what did happen, rewrote it and sent it out.
I despise Gore, but perpetuating fiction doesn't help any.
Farish- thanks for the correction. That's what I get for cut and pasting from my e-mail. I am pretty sure that Osama was named in those hearings. I will have to look back into that.
I just had a discussion with one of the people in my office. She doesn’t know why we are there. She watched some thing last nite about the Kerds heading back to the mountains. She said we should just give them guns and let them free themselves.
Man, I had a hard time calmly informing her that we are not just helping them. And that giving them guns would not solve the problem.
Darrin
I just had a discussion with one of the people in my office. She doesn’t know why we are there. She watched some thing last nite about the Kerds heading back to the mountains. She said we should just give them guns and let them free themselves.
Man, I had a hard time calmly informing her that we are not just helping them. And that giving them guns would not solve the problem.
Darrin
Search www.snopes.com for it, they had it up quite some time ago.
Also, I'm not sure how old you are, but basic historical facts blow that "testimony" out of the water. That was supposed to be in 1987, which was about the time Ollie was on the hill before congress. Howver, at that time OBL was not viewed as a terrorist. During the 1980's, Afghanistan was occupied by Soviet forces and rebel freedom fighters were giving them holy hell for it. The CIA was involved in training people in guerilla warfare tactics for the express pupose of helping the natives resist the Soviets.
It is now and has since shortly after 9-11 been widely known that OBL was one of the individuals the CIA trained. It's a case of our teaching him subversive tactics comig back to bite us.
But in 1987, OBL was not targeting America, he was just another operative the CIA trained for Afghanistan.
It is now and has since shortly after 9-11 been widely known that OBL was one of the individuals the CIA trained. It's a case of our teaching him subversive tactics comig back to bite us.
But in 1987, OBL was not targeting America, he was just another operative the CIA trained for Afghanistan.
I don't really see how anyone has "gotten in our way".
It looks like we are going in without the UN so what does a promise to veto matter? Mr. Blair will most likely lose his position over this and I don't know what Spain's deal is.
How can anybody get in "our" way? We are the last superpower left right? Screw'em. N. korea next, then Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and oh yeah, OBL is still out there. Then we'll take a good look at the French...
It looks like we are going in without the UN so what does a promise to veto matter? Mr. Blair will most likely lose his position over this and I don't know what Spain's deal is.
How can anybody get in "our" way? We are the last superpower left right? Screw'em. N. korea next, then Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and oh yeah, OBL is still out there. Then we'll take a good look at the French...
NY, you're right. The only people in our way live in Bagdad /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Canada has assisted in our fighting terrorism, with troops in Afghanistan. Maybe more that's not coming to mind at the moment.
Last I heard, we have 45 nations supporting us in some way regarding Iraq. Most are not sending troops, but I don't see that as a problem. While any such help is welcome I really think we can handle Iraq's military with our own forces.
The French weasles are even trying to make wiggle room, they announced that if we find the weapons that Saddam says he doesn't have, then they'll be on our side.
What a bunch of quivering useless crap.
Canada has assisted in our fighting terrorism, with troops in Afghanistan. Maybe more that's not coming to mind at the moment.
Last I heard, we have 45 nations supporting us in some way regarding Iraq. Most are not sending troops, but I don't see that as a problem. While any such help is welcome I really think we can handle Iraq's military with our own forces.
The French weasles are even trying to make wiggle room, they announced that if we find the weapons that Saddam says he doesn't have, then they'll be on our side.
What a bunch of quivering useless crap.
I have been watching CNN for about an hour now, Germany is still standing by their word for air strips, Turkey has voted to give us access, Australia is commiting 2,000 troops, on and on. France is getting ready for hard economic times! They have been reporting veterans of WWII, turning in their D-day medals because of France, saying they can't honor the medals now!!! How soon the French forget.
AKA_bushmaster
New member
Cal Sibley, you said it all. Its embarrassing when that man claims to be our leader!
From the Associated Press 3/20/03 afternoon, Canada's response to US war on Iraq-
Chretien came under fire from Washington and opposition parties this week after saying Ottawa would not commit troops because the war had not been authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Opinion polls show most Canadians strongly back his view.
"I want to assure everyone that we are continuing to take all necessary measures to protect Canadians and ensure our security. We are working closely with American authorities to ensure that our border and crossings remain safe and efficient," Chretien said on Thursday.
At this point I think there is no use debating the reasons why some people think war is necessary and some people think it is not. We should not say anything that would comfort Saddam Hussein," he told reporters. A government official said Chretien was "asking people to cool down the rhetoric."
Chretien later told Parliament that "I hope this war will be very short and there will be a minimum of victims and of course I hope the Americans will do as well as possible," a comment that a spokesman said reflected the prime minister's hope that casualties would be minimized.
Chretien came under fire from Washington and opposition parties this week after saying Ottawa would not commit troops because the war had not been authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Opinion polls show most Canadians strongly back his view.
"I want to assure everyone that we are continuing to take all necessary measures to protect Canadians and ensure our security. We are working closely with American authorities to ensure that our border and crossings remain safe and efficient," Chretien said on Thursday.
At this point I think there is no use debating the reasons why some people think war is necessary and some people think it is not. We should not say anything that would comfort Saddam Hussein," he told reporters. A government official said Chretien was "asking people to cool down the rhetoric."
Chretien later told Parliament that "I hope this war will be very short and there will be a minimum of victims and of course I hope the Americans will do as well as possible," a comment that a spokesman said reflected the prime minister's hope that casualties would be minimized.