Canada will not participate

CBC is reporting that Canada will not participate in the U.S. backed war against Iraq.

I’m not smart enough to understand this war and the reasons for and against, but setting all that aside, it takes guts for Prime Minister Chretien to not join the U.S. war bandwagon.

I may even be feeling a titch of patriotism.

Won’t have to move to France after all.

Comments

Alan's picture
Alan on March 17, 2003 - 20:42

What are they going to call Canadian bacon or Canada Dry? I heard a good piece over the weekend how next November Americans will boycott eating turkey.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 17, 2003 - 21:04

It would have taken more guts to do the right thing.

Ken's picture
Ken on March 18, 2003 - 01:38

So this is what it felt like in Holland when Germany took Poland.

Kevin's picture
Kevin on March 18, 2003 - 02:14

Point of view will be on this topic Tue 7pm. Campbell Webster will field calls. Dr. Richard Curial will use his considerable knowledge of the US to give us a look into the cabinet of the US; he won’t be offering opinion. We feel that people of PEI might want to answer this question:

You go to a peace assembly, you’re near the podium and the moderator decides to ask a general member of the public to speak for half a minute directly to George W Bush. And so the question is, “What would you say to George Bush?”

See you then.

Christopher's picture
Christopher on March 18, 2003 - 04:07

Ken, I don’t know you (that I’m aware of) and I’m not at all sure that I agree with what you just wrote (but that’s not important)…if you’re not earning big bucks as a copywriter, someone’s missing a trick. If you can turn that sort of thing round to order, you’re worth whatever you cre to charge. I’m speechless with envy.

Christopher's picture
Christopher on March 18, 2003 - 04:09

…and also spellchecker-challenged. cre=care

Ken's picture
Ken on March 18, 2003 - 05:30

Kevin, you should pose another choice, “What would you say to Saddam” although I bet most callers would send a shout out to Bush it would still be interesting and would avoid a complete Bush bash.
Christopher — who are these copywriter’s and how can I be one for money?

Ken's picture
Ken on March 18, 2003 - 05:43

Saddam Hussein should read the Bush speech verbatim at 8pm tomorrow in Baghdad reversing the references between himself and Bush. Word

Ken's picture
Ken on March 18, 2003 - 06:43

BTW I don’t love Saddam, I think he’s brutal, but all this over a tin-pot dictator whose country was splayed out already; total airspace control, total access to sites on the ground. Why the urgent invasion? Slow compliance? Bush pushed his way into office, wealthy hearts and now the country of Iraq. Bush Middle East Policy: Pick the meanest leader and beat his ass dead, then teach the others about life, liberty, and the pursuit of oil.
All that said, I’d fight to the death to defend America’s right to elect such a bold idiot.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 12:17

You go to a peace assembly…”

He will probably claim to be misunderstood again, Ken, but you are right that we will not find many who are willing to speak out in favour of this war at a peace assembly. Are there any TV Talkshow hosts out there who are looking for and welcome opposing opinions on the topic?

I see that this whole issue is about the choice between peace and war. No one in their right mind would choose war over peace.

But peace is an end and I feel there are circumstances when war is the only means to that end. Saddam’s non-compliance for more then 12 years with the United Nations Security Council demands for disarmament — despite numerous warnings and second chances — shows that he is ultimately responsible for making the choice for war.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 13:28

Was George elected, Ken? Some would argue that he was…

Rob's picture
Rob on March 18, 2003 - 14:44

Sitting out is easy. It would have taken guts to join.

Rob's picture
Rob on March 18, 2003 - 14:45

Oops. I see Wayne has already made my point.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 14:57

Well said, Rob!

Alan's picture
Alan on March 18, 2003 - 14:59

I watched Blair this morning from the UK Parliament and was convinced on the cause by his outlining of the estimated stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. I would have preferred 30 days and a UN resolution. As a dual citizen, my divided feelings, however, are oddly satisfied by the two stances. Canada is not hauling out integrated forces out and hosts the headquarters of the command for the Gulf fleet [if the Iroquois is now in place.] We are also active in Afganistan and have sent 15 naval mission to the area since 11 September 2001. I think our position is hardly that of France, the peaceniks that gave us bikini atoll, and is appreciated by the US.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 15:04

And turkey might be on the menu next November after all!

Ken's picture
Ken on March 18, 2003 - 15:37

Or crow.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 15:42

Tabernouche…
France is now trying to justify a way to save face and join the coalition, saying WMD use by Saddam changes everything. They are collapsing their position, as predicted. But, the damage is done…

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 15:43

LOL…pretty good,Ken!

Kevin's picture
Kevin on March 18, 2003 - 18:27

Ken, I’m glad I posted here… you’ve made a good suggestion.

The premise is a peace rally.. so the message would be appropriate if it only went to Bush… but a different premise, one less likely to encoruage imbalance, may well be a good thing to ponder between now and air time.

I’ll give very serious consideration to what you’ve said and if I keep the same premise you can expect a good reason should you care to ask. Regardless, same or different premise, I will do my best to keep balance on the show even if I have to [gulp!] defend a perfectly fine president who wants add Mass Murderer to his CV just because the guy in the ugly mustache can write “MM” after his Sirname.

Kevin's picture
Kevin on March 18, 2003 - 18:52

Sorry guys.. I just read through carefully all the postings here (I’ll admit to reading one and skipping to the bottom before).

Wayne, I frequently disagree with your conclusions but rarely with the process you use to get there. If you can phrase your opinion on this topic with pacing and respect I would absolutely love to hear you call POV this evening.

In fact reading your stuff here (and I want the source for your quotation) has helped me decide what to do visa vie the comment to Ken above. I’ll ask “Which world leader would you like to speak to, and what you would like to say?”. It’s TV and we can pretend and we can imagine these words go to that person… after all, it’s the exercise of discussing important issues that “is the message” not the details. (“St. McLuhen” (sp?), “do you agree?”)

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 19:18

Kevin: First, I would like to say that I always strive to phrase my opinions with pacing and respect. Thank you very much for your kind invitation to appear on your show this evening…just kidding…I know you would prefer a phone call. The source for my above quote was from… http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a…
I feel your decision in the premise of your topic is a good one and will offer the impartiality your program needs to present the facts in a way that is credible to your audience, and encourage them to make up their own minds from an informed position.
Unfortunately, I spend alot of time on the road and am out of the area tonight, and most Tuesdays. Best of luck, I would love to read the reviews here tomorrow, if Peter would permit.

Ken's picture
Ken on March 18, 2003 - 21:02

What difference does it make to me if Baghdad is destroyed?
America must bring freedom to Iraq. Only a massive military bombing campaign followed by a ground invasion will save these people from the brutality of Saddams regime. Hurry America, unleash the power of the war machine so can stop Saddams shredding machines.
Let’s personally supervise as our war machine shreds 30,000 Iraqis, on CNN.

Alan's picture
Alan on March 18, 2003 - 21:39

If it were only about the destruction of a tyrrany, I would not be uneasy in my support. That a tyrrany requires undoing should be obvious to citizens of a democracy. That a tyrrant acquires a machine requiring military defeat is the natural state of a tyrrant — how else is the population kept in check? We won’t really know until Iraq is defeated and thoughts turn to North Korea whether the intention to impose democracy is as pure as I would wish.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on March 18, 2003 - 21:53

And, as Canada has flopped in an opportunity to be really involved, it has relegated itself to the position of the irrelevent, with no grounds for input into reconstruction. But, I bet the coalition is glad most of our helicopters are staying home, anyway.

And, I bet somewhere out there, Brian Mulroney is saying to George W., “I told you so!”

Rob's picture
Rob on March 18, 2003 - 21:59

I also read the shredder article. Incredible.
Everyone should read the full text of Tony Blair’s incredible speech (requires registration). Tell me this man does not believe in the cause. American lackey, my ass.

Add new comment