disrespectful Canadians.....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I am, like Micheal, offended by the title of this thread. It is misleading. When at a sporting event and especially at a hockey game in Canada emotions run high. Were the few that were booing booing the NYI or America. You must relize also that when it is quite and there is no cheering going on and even a few hundred people start to boo it does seem very loud.

Also i;d like to comment on the poll of 71% of people supporting Jean. I would be suspect of those numbers. In my opinion if Jean would have supported the US quitely numbers would also be high. Living in Alberta there is a totally different feeling here then it seems there is in the rest of the country. Our priemer has sent a letter to the US ambassador saying he has the support of the Alberta gov't. I am also on that wave length. I support this war, I support the USA and i get pissed off when people are lumped together.
 
And about the media difference in Canada and the US. I totally agree with Micheal. CBC is a great org. they give info when it is real and not speculative instead of Cnn where its like primetime TV. I know you probably arent a big supporter of CNN, Wanderer, but CBC is a great news org. It's to bad you dont get it, i think you would quickly relize the differences in the media, and that goes for British media as well. The BBC is much like the CBC.
 
Yes, Bonoman, I read that Alberta was much different than the rest of the country in terms of individuals supporting the war. The support is much higher there. I think that's always been the case, though, with anything US related. Alberta is much more right wing than anywhere else in Canada, and they are also our oil province. Therefore, it would make sense.

So, how about those Oilers? I hope they don't play the Canucks, as I want both teams to go far. We'll see what happens.
 
here is an extremely critical editorial piece from the New York Times directed at Colin Powell, entitled, "Why Powell Should Go"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/opinion/22KELL.html

here is one of today's headlines from the same paper on American opinion polls of the war, tell me what it's slanting towards the US in this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/international/worldspecial/22POLL.html

here's one called "Civilian Toll: A Moral and Legal Bog"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/arts/22CIV.html

Washington Post article about veterans oposing the war

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7535-2003Mar21.html

here is one doubting the validity of Hussein's ability to use chemical weapons if he even has them...

"Chemicals Use Considered Less Likely: Experts Say Iraq Does Not Have Means to Deliver Them Against Invaders"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56744-2003Mar19.html
 
haha ok, I must be mentally unstable or something!

the news is out there, what people want to read and hear and take out of it is a different story

I'm just not very receptive to this idea that the US media has brain-washed millions with mis-information
 
Yes, but my point was not to do with people who are willing to find out information for themselves, such as in print media. It's more to do with the mass media of CNN, and how easy it is to buy into everything it espouses. It's what pretty much everyone watches, even in Canada, to get the fast action. Unfortunately, like fast food, there's not much there to digest, and if there is, some of it can cause indigestion.
 
So this proves what. We are only saying that on a whole Media (as in TELEVISON) is a little slanted and you might see the differences if you seen some foriegn coverage, and i'm not saying you havent but its only that simple. Would you like me to go get article upon articles of different stories? We could do this all day.


Micheal, ya oil is a main part of alot of peoples life in Alberta and we do worry about what happens. Alot of business done here is with Americans so will Klien giving his support he saves his ass at the same time.

And those oilers, hopefully play your Canuks because frankly i dont think we can beat any of the others top teams.
 
yes, all media information is slanted, US media is slanted towards US perspective and interests, dont make the mistake of thinking this is unique characteristic of US media alone

the only reason I posted the article URLs was to show you that the same information is being presented here that is presentd there

I can't make people read the newspaper and watch different networks to get a broader view, but millions watch 60 Minutes every week and their in-depth reports are often very probing and critical of US activities, maybe they dont show that in Canada, dont assume that because they show CNN in Canada that this is all Americans are watching, CNN's ratings are not even that good anymore...
 
Last edited:
Actually, Bonoman:

I wouldn't underestimate your Oilers. I think they'd give Dallas a good run for their money. They always play well against Dallas, and even beat them last time they met. If I were an Oiler fan, I wouldn't want to be playing the Canucks, as they've had much more success with other teams. Their season series with the Canucks has been a decided loss. What is it again? I think the Canucks have won all but one game, which was a tie. I believe it's 4-0-1 or something for the Canucks?

Wanderer:

Yes, we do get 60 minutes. I realize there are other networks. I just wonder sometimes how many pay much attention to those criticisims. Also, yes, I do realize that every country has their own slant to the media, some more than others. It just so happens that right now, America is at war, so therefore that media coverage will be even more biased as a result. It's a natural condition of conflict. I have heard reports that many journalists are being screened and told what to report and what they can not report in the US. That's why I prefer to get my news elsewhere, that's all. The more objective, the better.
 
Last edited:
i dont know if that's true or not about screening new reporters. what i hear is that reporters in iraq and kuwait are restricted from commenting about certain things they see and hear that could be sensitive to military intelligence and strategy

but I see no evidence of politicians and new services holding back on criticism of the administration activities, there was a correspondent yesterday talking about how missiles had hit civilian houses around military buildings that had been targeted, so I havent seen evidence of any gag orders
 
Update:
The president of the Montreal Canadiens apologizerd for the select few fans. Then, a bunch of dumb butt Americans booed the Canadian National Anthem, I think in Nashville, where the Senators then wholloped the team 6-1.

Dumb people should have their tickets revoked.
 
yep, dickweeds in both Atlanta and Montreal now!

http://espn.go.com/nhl/news/2003/0322/1527854.html

from espn.com news services:

Atlanta dickweeds join Montreal numbnuts in protest...

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Saturday that fans booed during the Canadian national anthem before the Thrashers' game against the Senators in Atlanta.

It might have been a response to events from Thursday night, when Montreal fans booed during the U.S. national anthem before a Canadiens' game against the New York Islanders.

Canadiens president Pierre Boivin issued an apology Friday. The Thrashers did the same that night.

"The entire Thrashers' organization regrets the actions of a small number of fans that behaved disrespectfully during the Canadian anthem tonight prior to the Thrashers' game against the Ottawa Senators," the statement read as printed in the newspaper.

"The Thrashers' organization firmly believes this type of behavior has no place in professional sports. We hope that this was an isolated incident and apologize to anyone who was offended, including the Canadian-born members of both teams."
 
I 'm a Canadien that is currently living in the US. I support the war 100%. I personaly could give fuck what Canadiens are saying or doing about the war. 70% of the people that are non-supporter are 100% ignorant to what it is all about. The thing that pisses me off is that bull-shit goverment with that fucker as primeminister. And the thing is it's not the Canadiens falt they are ignorant to the war. All their info comes from the french and thier own government. Sorry but I hate the Canadien government as you can see. My parents still live there and I see the bull-shit they go through. Yes, Bush isn't my favorite in the world either but I do trust the people around him and it is the perople around him that do the leading not Bush. We have dealt with Saddam's 12 years of breaking every rule of the Post-Golf War Treaty he sighned. As far as I'm concerned we should have went in earlier. 911 just lit a fired under America's ass to do something. When you listen to former citizen's of Iraq that live here now and lived under Saddam's rigime for years. When they are suppoting Bush and our government 100% you have to, have to think about that. This didn't happen over night. Of course Saddam has boilogical weapons. He had 2 tons worth of anthrax after the gulf war. What, do you think all of a sudden he doesn't now. I hate war just as much as the next person but come on.
 
Wow, that was amusing. I guess that makes me ignorant to what it's all about then.

This is a very complicated issue, and many on both sides of the fence have tried to reduce it to to something very simple to further their cause. I, for one, wish the US had somehow gone in with UN support, but now that the war has started, it is rather pointless to dwell on how we got here. Like many, I hope the fight is over with quickly, that Saddam and his regime are disposed of, and that as few (civilians and soldiers) die as possible. I can see the needs of the US; I can understand why they felt they had to invade. The impact of 911 can only be fully understood by someone who lives in America. Yet, I can also see the other side of the coin, too. Not living in America gives one a detatchment that may be necessary in order to objectify the situation to its fullest degree. We don't know what the consequences are going to be, and we don't know if it will stir up more terrorism in the long run than it will prevent.
 
Last edited:
gherman said:
I personaly could give fuck what Canadiens are saying or doing about the war. 70% of the people that are non-supporter are 100% ignorant to what it is all about.

:rolleyes:

Yes, 20 million of us are ignorant fools.
 
And let's keep the generalizations and personal attacks to a minimum. Just as a reminder: Canada is our most important neighbor to the north (George W. Bush).







:sexywink:
 
paxetaurora said:
And let's keep the generalizations and personal attacks to a minimum. Just as a reminder: Canada is our most important neighbor to the north (George W. Bush).








:sexywink:
haha, that's right Pax. That was a funny comment. Did you see that on Rick Mercer Talking To Americans?
 
I suppose the same respect is being afforded to America as America has been giving to France.

America is excellent at flapping its big greedy mouth, but cannot accept criticism
 
Ahhhh yes it's the U.S. who's greedy spending 1 trillion dollars on taking out a dangerous regime, while France sits back and tries to make every roadblock to keep Saddam in power so they can continue to cash in on food for oil programs and the oil contracts they have signed with Iraq.

and now france is saying they won't even help to rebuild in Iraq. So France "cares" so much about Iraq and it's citizens that they 1. Won't help liberate them from a tyranical regime and 2. Won't help build up their cities once they are freed from that regime.

That Chirac is a real stand up guy. :|
 
Last edited:
Nice womanfish!

And Micheal, did you ever live in the US?

I didn't think so. I've lived in both countries and if I were chosen to fight in both countries, I would gladly die for the U.S.A.
 
gherman said:
Nice womanfish!

And Micheal, did you ever live in the US?

I didn't think so. I've lived in both countries and if I were chosen to fight in both countries, I would gladly die for the U.S.A.
I'm still trying to get my head around your question, and why it should have any barring on whether I support this war effort or not, but I'll answer it. No, I've never lived in the US. Most of the world hasn't. So what's your point? So, even though you've lived in both countries, you would die for the USA and not for Canada. Is that supposed to make me change my mind or something? I find your post very perplexing and, to be honest, a bit odd. I'm happy for you. You are very patriotic. But I don't understand what that has to do with my opinion.

Getting back to the discussion...

I don't see why one should resort to finding faults in other nations in order boost the cause of another. Just because France may have their agendas doesn't negate the fact that America may have agendas, as well. Why must we resort to slamming others in order to make our case? I don't mind those facts being discussed, but it's a bit of a weak argument for war. A better argument for war, in my opinion, would be the direct approach -- be it WOMD or a regime change, or what have you.
 
Last edited:
Well Michael when there are hundreds of thousands of people in the streets saying that the U.S. is greedy and then they applaud France for sticking to their "convictions" and say how the countries that aren't for the use of force are peace-loving countries with no agenda of their own. I say their agenda is one of greed and furthermore their greed blind them to the fact of the atrocities put on the Iraqi people, and the danger of Saddam to others outside Iraq.

You say that I am "finding faults" in other nations in order to boost what the U.S., UK, Spain, ect.... are doing. I find it ironic that people who are against the use of force find faults in what the U.S. and others are doing and what you think the coalition countries faults are in order to boost the inaction of countries like France and Canada.

It's just presenting facts - not putting anyone down. if presenting facts about a country is seen as putting them down then maybe that should raise questions of that nations true reasons for their stance on this issue.

and Yes i would much rather just stick to the facts, and to me the facts point to the use of force - if for nothing else then to stop the death of 5,000 Iraqi's a week under Saddam's regime (does that not bother you?) - but I was just responding to the comment that "America flaps it's greedy mouth and can't take criticism." right now that is about all America is taking, and they keep on with their cause because Saddam does need to be removed.
 
Last edited:
Womanfish, that's a good point. I suppose people on both sides of the argument look for faults to boost their cause. I didn't mean to say we shouldn't be trying to dig up the facts. On the contrary, I think we should dig as much facts up as possible. I just disagree that they should be the true reasons behind the arguments on both sides. They tend to be secondary reasons that are used to argue counter arguments. As for Canada, we sent troops to Afghanistan quite recently, which is helping the US out by allowing them to concentrate on the Iraq iniative. Our military is a fraction of yours, and we really can't foot much of the bills anyway. As mentioned, Cretien had said from the beginning that he would only back a war effort in Iraq if it was UN sanctioned. I don't see a problem with that, as that was Canada's prerogative.
 
I agree with your take on Canada. If you aren't part of the Security Council, then really I would think that it is reasonable to wait for an agreed UN resolution passed by the council. Right now I think only Spain and Australia are the two countries that are supplying troops who aren't part of the security council. Maybe Bulgaria, but not sure.

Anyway, I think it is cool that we have a larger bit of help with Afghanastan.

And my take on it is that regime change is the key in Iraq. WMD's have been the focus, but the only reason that the WMD's are an issue is because Saddam is a ruthless dictator that has used them. I say get rid of Saddam and then the UN can hopefully drop sanctions resulting in the easing of the horrible death toll that continues to mount because of Saddam.
 
gherman said:
I've lived in both countries and if I were chosen to fight in both countries, I would gladly die for the U.S.A.

This is the spirit I like. Your country needs you.

I see new material for the black steel machine.

Go fight, gherman! Your mother will be happy you gladly die for the U.S.A.

Regards from the oval office
 
Back
Top Bottom