Proud of my Prime Minister (for once)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched quite a bit of your parliament today on CSPAN. I also like the woman (don't know who she was) that asked your PM to demand no depleted Uranium be used in the attack on Iraq.
 
here is the article

PM says lack of UN resolution means Canada won't fight in Iraq
Last Updated Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:18:05
OTTAWA - Ottawa has rejected any Canadian participation in a U.S.-led assault on Iraq.

Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien made the announcement on Monday, as the House of Commons resumed sitting after a two-week break.


Jean Chr?tien

Chr?tien says without the backing of the United Nations, Canada can't go along with any war initiative.

Critics have accused Chr?tien of wavering and waffling on his position. There is now no doubt where Canada stands.

"If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate," the prime minister said.
 
That?s the right thing to do, congrats Canadians. :up: My president has spoken against the war the way it is presented as well.

At this same time Tony Blair cabinet is falling apart there in good old UK.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12270878,00.html

COOK SPEECH IN FULL

Former Foreign Secretary was the first casualty of war when he announced his resignation from the Cabinet.

But he received a standing ovation from MPs when he set out his reasons for resigning.


Here are edited extracts of his speech:



War vote

"I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

Neither the international community nor the British public are persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this action in Iraq.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who vote against military action now. It is for that reason and that reason alone that with a heavy heart I have resigned from the Government.

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations which led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition," he said.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

The international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

French 'not to blame'

We delude ourselves if we think the degree of international hostility (to military action) is all the result of President (Jacques) Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without the agreement of any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner -not Nato, not the EU, and now not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse."

Mr Cook dismissed comparisons of the Iraq crisis with Kosovo, stressing that Britain then had the backing of Nato, the European Union and seven of Yugoslavia's neighbours in taking action to end an "urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis".

"It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement," he said.

"Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq."

Contradiction

He continued: "Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate this invasion.

"We cannot base a military strategy of the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly-understood sense of the term; namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it's had them since the 1980s, when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that to take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there 20 years and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks has been the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected we would not now be about to commit British troops.
 
Cook is right, this is no Kosovo. I supported the campaign in Kosovo, incidentally. I do not support the present madness at all. :madspit: :mad: :censored: :scream:
 
Ok, I dont want to offend anyone here but I am so torn over this.

The whole reason Chretien did this is because not only did Bush fail to provide him with any evidence of his fraudulent claims, but the Canadian people said 'no' and he had to listen.

So what is it with America?

I respect my American friends on this board but I'm wondering:

- was America presented with some evidence that we up here missed or something?

- are the majority of Americans who are supporting this war all blind moronic sheep?

- or are they resting on the principle that they should unswervingly support their leader, even if that makes them complicit in his murderous campaigns?

Either way, I want to know: why can't you all stop him???

Is it because he controls the military?

Isn't that more like a dictatorship than anything?

What the hell is democracy good for then?
 
The true north, strong and free indeed.

What a great day to be a Canadian. A leader listens to his people. Imagine that!! :yes:
 
Since I know that you are not a blind moronic sheep Dreadsox and you are also not ignorant of the fact that there are other alternatives, that doesn't leave you in a very desirable category.

Cmon man, work with me here.
 
gabrielvox said:
- are the majority of Americans who are supporting this war all blind moronic sheep?

I can tell you that I, for one, am not a blind, moronic sheep, but a human who happens to have a different opinion thatn yours.

~U2Alabama
 
Fine, so you aren't.

But given that none of the BS Bush fed you has any merit, where does that leave one?

A dolt, or someone so wrapped up in patriotic tradition that they would be willing to turn a blind eye to atrocity?

What will your comment be if and when they march in and find absolutely nothing, and kill almost a million people in the process?

Its all fine and nice to sit here and debate and make smarmy comments about how nice it is that we can all agree to disagree etc etc ad naseum...but guess what? GOD IS WATCHING.

Someday we're all gonna get called to account.

That much I believe.
 
gabriel. i'm done with this. you will NOT personally attack another poster again. and as far as saying that God is watching, i'm quite positive that Bama is the last person you need to be telling that. outside of that context, it's not your job to judge, though you've done plenty of that within this thread. consider this a warning.

this thread will be closed due to personal attacks and not staying anywhere near topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom