Taking it a little too far - Page 4

Chemical Ollie · April 4, 2003, 06:41

Why does the anger of other people make Americans surprised? You started a war of aggression against the will of the rest of the world. What did you expect?

muppet · April 4, 2003, 07:48

It is not the anger that is surprising.
It is the unabashed vocalness of children

Aren't they just so precious.

flash9286 · April 4, 2003, 08:24

Quote:

Why does the anger of other people make Americans surprised? You started a war of aggression against the will of the rest of the world. What did you expect?

Suprise they attacked kids. We started a war that needed to be started. I bet u didnt no that more countries are in the coalition that the first gulf war.

Btw: Ill look for more realible news scouce when i get home.

Daz · April 4, 2003, 08:54

I tend to dissagree that the motivation was because the USA started an "unjust" war. I think its the french thing.

Sikander · April 4, 2003, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

Yeah right. American sport fans routinely boo the Canadian national anthem,even when we were supporting the war in Afghanistan, even right after four Canadians were killed by an American pilot.

We don't go around screaming about how the Americans are anti-Canadian. We don't go around screaming about how we should cut our trade links. We don't even retaliate. More often then not, if American fans boo our anthem, we respond by cheering their anthem just to prove how civilized we are.

Routinely boo Oh! Canada? I grew up in Michigan and I have never seen this. Is it something new?

Cyclotron · April 4, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Bullshit. Have you even watched CNN in the last 3 months?

No, not much. CNN is bullshit.

Quote:

First off, nothing the *******s did was illegal. It wasn't violent and it wasn't destructive.

No ****, that's exactly what I said. Please quote me where I said any of this was illegal. I thought I made it pretty clear that it was not...

Quote:

Secondly, you've got supposedly respectable columnists and commentators on air (on a station received around the world, BTW) using ethnic stereotypes to depict Europeans and looking rather pleased with themselves.

What are you watching, Fox News? I have yet to see a TV commentator use ethnic stereotypes about anybody on American TV.

Quote:

Thirdly, your congressmen have been out in full force lately wrapping hatred in the American flag. And unlike here, they aren't fired or forced to apologise; they're lauded for it.

That's also BS. A boycott is neither racist nor hateful, it's just not very smart. In contrast, the kind of behavior exhibited by these Canadians was hateful, and not justified in any way.

And further along the BS trail...

Quote:

Yeah right. American sport fans routinely boo the Canadian national anthem,even when we were supporting the war in Afghanistan, even right after four Canadians were killed by an American pilot.

What are you talking about? I have not seen this around. Most people here don't even know that Canada isn't part of the coalition.

Quote:

We don't go around screaming about how the Americans are anti-Canadian.

No, but apparently you do go around screaming how the "US sucks." That, if anything, is worse.

Quote:

We don't go around screaming about how we should cut our trade links. We don't even retaliate. More often then not, if American fans boo our anthem, we respond by cheering their anthem just to prove how civilized we are.

No, you don't. You boo our anthem far more than we do yours, but that's neither here nor there.

If you don't call the topic of this thread "retaliation" in the way you mean it, I see no reason why I should give validity to anything else you have said here.

If we are such bigots, why don't you post some articles of American bigoted acts?

Garth Vader · April 4, 2003, 13:42

This is a link from the booing on the day funerals started for the 4 Canadians killed in Afghanistan.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...2/c05sp104.htm

If we could stop focusing on the fringe whackos who want attention maybe this could all blow over. (ironic statement given that I just provided this link

)

Kontiki · April 4, 2003, 14:32

Quote:

Originally posted by flash9286
We started a war that needed to be started. I bet u didnt no that more countries are in the coalition that the first gulf war.

Btw: Ill look for more realible news scouce when i get home.

A) Needed to be started according to whom?

B) Utter crap about the sizes of the coalition. First, try counting the number of countries making an active military contribution (and, while you're at it, look at what those countries represent). Then, realize that the first Gulf War was fully UN sanctioned, and the de facto list of supporting countries was the vast majority of all UN member states.

flash9286 · April 4, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

A) Needed to be started according to whom?

Un resolution 1441

Quote:

B) Utter crap about the sizes of the coalition. First, try counting the number of countries making an active military contribution (and, while you're at it, look at what those countries represent). Then, realize that the first Gulf War was fully UN sanctioned, and the de facto list of supporting countries was the vast majority of all UN member states.

We dont need military contributions, the Us military can more than handle iraq

Chemical Ollie · April 4, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by flash9286

Suprise they attacked kids. We started a war that needed to be started. I bet u didnt no that more countries are in the coalition that the first gulf war.

Btw: Ill look for more realible news scouce when i get home.

Only 2 countries bring useful troops AFAIK. Another 30 or so send symbolic navy ships or just declare war against Iraq in a symbolic way. The UN has about 200 members, and most of them are against the war.

Even Sweden was a part of the first war, which purpose was to PUNISH a war of aggression. We sent a very useful field hospital and a (symbolic, I admit it

) navy ship. We are not a part of it this time. It is a war of aggression, and it's only objective is to unite the American people against a common enemy to win Bush a second term.

It's wimpy to feel pity for your own kids hearing harsh words in Canada, when your neighburs' sons and daughters are literally shredding Iraqi kids to hamburger meat with bombs and heavy machine guns. Many of those American soldiers who get home safely will still end up in mental institutions to heal what they have done.

Spec · April 4, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

It's clear that the cowardly French are hopelessly corrupt whether they stay in little France or spread their germs to other countries.

No, THAT is just sad...

Who says that kind of stuff? And they wonder why we booed them.

It's not only because of the war that we hate them, it's because of how they act. Boycotting France because they dont agree is one BIG reason.

Think people, THINK!

Spec.

Kontiki · April 4, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by flash9286

Un resolution 1441

An interpretation the majority of the world does not share.

Quote:

We dont need military contributions, the Us military can more than handle iraq

Then why did you bring up that stupid and incorrect point in the first place? Anyway you choose to look at it, this coalition is far smaller than during the first Gulf War.

Chemical Ollie · April 4, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki

An interpretation the majority of the world does not share.

Then why did you bring up that stupid and incorrect point in the first place? Anyway you choose to look at it, this coalition is far smaller than during the first Gulf War.

Yeah, let them eat **** and die...

notyoueither · April 4, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Yeah, let them eat **** and die...

Who?

Kontiki · April 4, 2003, 21:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre

Yeah, let them eat **** and die...

And what?

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 00:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

I said nothing about arrogant. I did ask how practical your government is being in expecting my government to be unquestionably loyal in the face of paying unemployment insurance to victims of your governments quaint views on 'free' trade.

But, now that you mention it, I would say it is fairly arrogant to expect that no matter what sort of trade stick your government whacks my country with, we will be there for you, like a loyal poodle.

I have news for you. Canadians are not your poodles.

You don't seem to be following, so let me spell it out real slow like.

You are entitled to your opinion. So are the French. Its ok. I don't expect any loyalty, support, help, whatever. The French owe us nothing, the Canadians even less. You can think what you want. Its ok. Its entirely up to you. You don't need to "be there " for us.

That said, we don't need to "be there " for you. If Canada, France etc. wish ( entirely within their rights as sovereign free nations) to oppose us, wish to be our adversaries, why should they be shocked to find that we treat them as such?

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 01:30

Oops, double.

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 01:41

How is not joining in on the ground being opposed?

Was Canada opposed to Vietnam?

Was the United States opposed to GB and the Commonwealth from '39 to '41?

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
How is not joining in on the ground being opposed?

Was Canada opposed to Vietnam?
.
Was the United States opposed to GB and the Commonwealth from '39 to '41?

As to the first question, yes, that's why our cowards went there. As to the second, shamefully yes, the Democrats were in charge then.

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 01:56

Well. I see that you exemplify the things that cause some people to mistake Americans for America.

Good going. Maybe some more Canadians will start to hate all things American after encountering more people like you.

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 02:01

Sorry, skipped over the first question. There is really no question that the Canucks are opposed, is there?
As for the French, apparently only a bare majority actually even want us to win.
Is that not enough? OK, how about busily scurrying about the globe stirring up opposition to us when we were (foolishly) trying to get the Security Council to act?

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 02:05

Where do you get this information?

Nearly 50% of English Canadians favour supporting the United States openly. A large majority of Quebec does not.

And exactly where were Canadian diplomats scurrying about in opposition to your foreign policy?

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 02:05

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well. I see that you exemplify the things that cause some people to mistake Americans for America.

Good going. Maybe some more Canadians will start to hate all things American after encountering more people like you.

Odd that you would think Americans don't represent America.
As for "hate", thats your word, not mine. I would not suggest we should hate Canadians or French, only see things as they are.

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 02:06

No, not Canadians scurrying, French. Sorry I wasn't clear on that point.

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 02:09

Quote:

Originally posted by LoneWolf

Odd that you would think Americans don't represent America.
As for "hate", thats your word, not mine. I would not suggest we should hate Canadians or French, only see things as they are.

Does Che represent the values of the United States of America? Do you presume to speak for all Americans?

I would suggest you are in the midst of a frenzy and that many Americans such as yourself have entered a bunker mentality in the face of your government getting its diplomatic butt kicked by the French.

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 02:18

I see no "frenzy" at all. Just normal people, going to work and living their lives.

I don't know what you mean by "bunker mentality".

Getting our butt diplomatically kicked by the French? Umm, okay.

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 02:20

So then, why are some Americans lashing out at countries who said simply, 'no, we will not go'?

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 02:22

You think we should not acknowledge who our friends are, and who are not?

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 02:33

Can you not conceive that there may be very good reasons for a country such as Canada not getting involved in an action which is widely regarded as being aggressive?

We put a large number of our sons and daughters into blue helmets to make and keep peace. Their lives rely in great part on the perception around the world that Canadians are not the tools of any other power.

How do you think that would be effected by us blindly joining in whatever adventure was dreamt up in Washington?

All that being said, our navy is in the Gulf, and our army is in Afghanistan. There is not a lot more to send. There is not a lot more support for Canada to lend.

LoneWolf · April 5, 2003, 02:39

I think at the start of this discussion, I made it clear that Canada, like any sovereign nation (yes, even the US!) can do what it wants.
But there are consequences to any act. We are willing and able to deal with the consequences of ours.
Are you?