Canadian reaction to Bush win

[xtc]

Excerpt from an article in today's Toronto Star.

“For Martin and for Canada, that means hard times ahead. A federal government that days ago was hoping the end of the presidential campaign would mark the beginning of a new effort to resolve beef and lumber disputes can now only fear that relations will trip badly over values and attitudes.

What became painfully clear in the wee hours of yesterday morning is that countries with quickly converging economies have rapidly diverging world and domestic views.
Still dealing with a trauma Canadians don't quite grasp, U.S. voters opted for the candidate they felt would make them safest.

In making that decision, they bought wholesale a Bush package that also includes infecting the world with what's being called viral democracy and a return to the comforting traditions of Big Brother government, church and family.

As a pre-election EKOS Research poll found, those views are not Canadian views. Most Canadians consider Bush a negative force for world peace, North American security, trade, the economy and good relations.

That extraordinary demonizing of any president would be a problem for any prime minister. For one with an unstable minority, it's a nightmare.”

Article Here (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1099522210937&call_pag eid=968332188492&col=968793972154)

[Parkbandit]

I'm happy with the election results. I really couldn't give one flying fuck what some stupid Canadian thinks.

Sorry.

Me > :rock: < Canadian

[HarmNone]

That's the feeling of many Americans, unfortunately. Just as unfortunately, perhaps, we must be concerned with the feelings and reactions of other nations. The world is getting smaller and smaller, and we are a part of that world. If we isolate ourselves from even our closest neighbors, I cannot see how that would be a good thing.

[Caiylania]

I agree, Harmnone.

[Back]

Agreed on that, Harm. Its a global community. Everyone on this planet has rights by virtue of living here. For humans to succeed in reaching our highest potentials, the human race must work together.

People who espouse the “I don’t give a fuck what you think because I’m an American” are afraid of that for some reason.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by HarmNone
That's the feeling of many Americans, unfortunately. Just as unfortunately, perhaps, we must be concerned with the feelings and reactions of other nations. The world is getting smaller and smaller, and we are a part of that world. If we isolate ourselves from even our closest neighbors, I cannot see how that would be a good thing.

I didn't cast my vote to take into account some reporter's feelings as he sat in his own country. I cast my vote on who I believe the best President for this country will be. If that is against said reporter.. tough.

If he doesn't like the outcome, he can come to the US.. become a citizen.. and vote. It would be like me complaining who the new liberal Prime Minister of Canada is.

Sorry.. no matter WHO was elected, someone in some foreign land would be upset with the result. You can't please everyone all the time. I'm pleased and that's all that matters to me.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Agreed on that, Harm. Its a global community. Everyone on this planet has rights by virtue of living here. For humans to succeed in reaching our highest potentials, the human race must work together.

People who espouse the “I don’t give a fuck what you think because I’m an American” are afraid of that for some reason.

You forget we are talking about an AMERICAN election... not a WORLD election. People of foreign countries don't have a say in our election.. just like I can't cast a vote to get the socialists out of power in France.

Are you going to claim now that there would be no one that would have been upset had Kerry been elected? I'd say Putin of Russia would be. Do you simply say "Oh fuck him.. he's Russian.. he doesn't count"?

Give me a break.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Agreed on that, Harm. Its a global community. Everyone on this planet has rights by virtue of living here. For humans to succeed in reaching our highest potentials, the human race must work together.

People who espouse the “I don’t give a fuck what you think because I’m an American” are afraid of that for some reason.

You forget we are talking about an AMERICAN election... not a WORLD election. People of foreign countries don't have a say in our election.. just like I can't cast a vote to get the socialists out of power in France.

Are you going to claim now that there would be no one that would have been upset had Kerry been elected? I'd say Putin of Russia would be. Do you simply say "Oh fuck him.. he's Russian.. he doesn't count"?

Give me a break.

A say no, an opinion yes.

This is your closest neighbour and friend that you share the world's largest border with.

I know PB that you are happy that Bush won. The rest of the world is stunned and shocked that he has been re-elected.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
I know PB that you are happy that Bush won. The rest of the world is stunned and shocked that he has been re-elected.

Generalize much? Every person in every foreign country is neither shocked or stunned.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by xtc
I know PB that you are happy that Bush won. The rest of the world is stunned and shocked that he has been re-elected.

Generalize much? Every person in every foreign country is neither shocked or stunned.


I watched International Media reaction to the Bush win. I saw people being interviewed in England, Canada, Hong Kong, France, etc. All were shocked and dismayed. Press in the world reflected the same sentiments.

I know you watch BBC World what did they say last night? Although BBC World does tend not to editorialise a lot.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by xtc]

[xtc]

There were some around the world who welcomed a Bush win.

"India's outsourcing and IT industries welcomed Bush's win"

India's techies welcome Bush victory

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=38031#compstory

[Parkbandit]

Terrorists are also unhappy with the results. Maybe I DID make a mistake at the poll.....

:rolleyes::wow::rolleyes:

[DeV]

Heh, one of my clients from Australia just e-mailed me and ended the letter with this:

P.S
Did you vote for George Bush?
I hope you didn't

I won't be answering her regarding that question but I found it interesting to say the least. Sort of rude for her to ask such a question not knowing if I voted for him or not. But, it does go to show that people worldwide were as interested in this election as we are at the heart of it.

[StrayRogue]

I think the belief that American's shouldn't care about what any other country thinks is a valid one. The election is a domestic issue. However, considering America's proponance to stick its nose in on world affairs, throwing its weight around with sanctions and wars etc, its not like they don't have a say in world politics. So if America didn't do this, I'd be happy to say no one's opinion but American's would be valid. But thats not the way it is. The presidential election doesn't just effect the US, but the rest of the world. And the majority of the rest of the world are disappointed you fell for Bush's bullshit twice in a row now.

[Parkbandit]

I got to use this poster twice today.

[Sean of the Thread]

CANADA! Currently leading the world in being just north of the American border!!!eleventyelven!!

[StrayRogue]

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.

I wouldn't know. Is it?

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Xyelin
CANADA! Currently leading the world in being just north of the American border!!!eleventyelven!!

I'll quote myself as it sums it up nicely.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by Xyelin
CANADA! Currently leading the world in being just north of the American border!!!eleventyelven!!

I'll quote myself as it sums it up nicely.

:lol:

[Back]

You know what I mean, PB.

The point here is being more aware of a global culture rather than telling everyone to fuck off. Want to lead and win a global war on terror? There has to be some kind of effort to extend a hand to allies. Our own domestic issues, I agree, are our own. When dealing with the rest of the world though, there should be concessions both ways.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Backlash
You know what I mean, PB.

The point here is being more aware of a global culture rather than telling everyone to fuck off. Want to lead and win a global war on terror? There has to be some kind of effort to extend a hand to allies. Our own domestic issues, I agree, are our own. When dealing with the rest of the world though, there should be concessions both ways.

Ohhh!!! I get it now.

now fuck off.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
You know what I mean, PB.

The point here is being more aware of a global culture rather than telling everyone to fuck off. Want to lead and win a global war on terror? There has to be some kind of effort to extend a hand to allies. Our own domestic issues, I agree, are our own. When dealing with the rest of the world though, there should be concessions both ways.

I fail to see how Kerry would have been a better President when it comes to foreign policy.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
And the majority of the rest of the world are disappointed you fell for Bush's bullshit twice in a row now. One day, when you grow up, you'll understand. :)

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by StrayRogue
And the majority of the rest of the world are disappointed you fell for Bush's bullshit twice in a row now. One day, when you grow up, you'll understand. :) Same goes for you. :P

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
You know what I mean, PB.

The point here is being more aware of a global culture rather than telling everyone to fuck off. Want to lead and win a global war on terror? There has to be some kind of effort to extend a hand to allies. Our own domestic issues, I agree, are our own. When dealing with the rest of the world though, there should be concessions both ways.

I fail to see how Kerry would have been a better President when it comes to foreign policy.

Small things like not calling the UN irrelevant, not starting senseless wars. Working with Allies instead of pissing them off.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
You know what I mean, PB.

The point here is being more aware of a global culture rather than telling everyone to fuck off. Want to lead and win a global war on terror? There has to be some kind of effort to extend a hand to allies. Our own domestic issues, I agree, are our own. When dealing with the rest of the world though, there should be concessions both ways.

I fail to see how Kerry would have been a better President when it comes to foreign policy.

Small things like not calling the UN irrelevant, not starting senseless wars. Working with Allies instead of pissing them off.

And Kerry did this by...? Oh that's right, he SAID he would do this.

Ah yes...

And the UN isn't irrelevant. It was clearly in bed with Iraq and France in the Oil for Food program.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
You know what I mean, PB.

The point here is being more aware of a global culture rather than telling everyone to fuck off. Want to lead and win a global war on terror? There has to be some kind of effort to extend a hand to allies. Our own domestic issues, I agree, are our own. When dealing with the rest of the world though, there should be concessions both ways.

I fail to see how Kerry would have been a better President when it comes to foreign policy.

Small things like not calling the UN irrelevant, not starting senseless wars. Working with Allies instead of pissing them off.

And Kerry did this by...? Oh that's right, he SAID he would do this.

Ah yes...

And the UN isn't irrelevant. It was clearly in bed with Iraq and France in the Oil for Food program.

The UN is bigger then France. Bush pissed off the UN. When he went to the UN recently and asked for help in Iraq, Kofi Anaan said those people who break International Law must first subject themselves to International Law before coming here and asking for help.

Do I think Kerry would be better received by the UN. Hell, yeah.

[Parkbandit]

Which international law did we break again? Clearly you are not discussing the Iraq situation.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Working with Allies instead of pissing them off. I know when people refuse to acknowledge my contributions, I never get pissed off. (Yes, it turns out I hold a grudge when we're talking about Poland.)

DEV: I'm wearing grown-up pants, does that count? :smilegrin:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
DEV: I'm wearing grown-up pants, does that count? :smilegrin: Not if they're too big for you. :whistle:

* j/k *

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Which international law did we break again? Clearly you are not discussing the Iraq situation.

Yes Iraq, Article 13 of the Geneva Convention to start with.

"prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated" and "likewise ... must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity"

And

"Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that — except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council"

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/IraqStatement/


So it seems it violates US and International Law

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by xtc]

[Tsunami]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'm happy with the election results. I really couldn't give one flying fuck what some stupid Canadian thinks.

Sorry.

Me > :rock: < Canadian

What an ignorant fuck you are.

Why don't you try looking outside your borders for once and realizing the US isn't the only country on the planet. Then turn around and look back inward and truely see how messed up the US had become, particularily in the last four years.

On a side note, I find it hilarious you post a picture of a Canadian to mock with.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsunami

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'm happy with the election results. I really couldn't give one flying fuck what some stupid Canadian thinks.

Sorry.

Me > :rock: < Canadian

What an ignorant fuck you are.

Why don't you try looking outside your borders for once and realizing the US isn't the only country on the planet. Then turn around and look back inward and truely see how messed up the US had become, particularily in the last four years.

On a side note, I find it hilarious you post a picture of a Canadian to mock with.

Dear dumbass.. continue to read my posts to get the answers to your retarded questions. And I know it was funny to post a pic of a Canadian to mock them with. Thank you.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Tsunami

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'm happy with the election results. I really couldn't give one flying fuck what some stupid Canadian thinks.

Sorry.

Me > :rock: < Canadian

What an ignorant fuck you are.

Why don't you try looking outside your borders for once and realizing the US isn't the only country on the planet. Then turn around and look back inward and truely see how messed up the US had become, particularily in the last four years.

On a side note, I find it hilarious you post a picture of a Canadian to mock with.

Oh on a side note, Fuck off canadian, you don't matter.

[Tsunami]

I didn't ask any questions and I read all your posts in regards to this thread.

[Parkbandit]

Then sorry.. you are simply too stupid to worry about.

I'll break it down for you in simple terms.

THIS WAS A UNITED STATES ELECTION.

CANADA IS NOT PART OF THE UNITED STATES.

THEREFORE, I COULDN'T GIVE ONE FLYING FUCK WHAT A CANADIAN REPORTER THINKS ABOUT MY VOTE FOR BUSH.

I certainly hope that helps. Have a fantastic day.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Then sorry.. you are simply too stupid to worry about.

I'll break it down for you in simple terms.

THIS WAS A UNITED STATES ELECTION.

CANADA IS NOT PART OF THE UNITED STATES.

THEREFORE, I COULDN'T GIVE ONE FLYING FUCK WHAT A CANADIAN REPORTER THINKS ABOUT MY VOTE FOR BUSH.

I certainly hope that helps. Have a fantastic day.

Bingo

[Tsunami]

Your ignorance continues to shine through. The thread is about what Canadians as a whole think about Bush being re-elected. My first e-mail of the morning was from a Canadian concerned about the outcome of the election. This isn't the opinion of one person, clearly.

And Xyelin, first of all, I never said I was Canadian, and second, go pound sand up your ass.

[Sean of the Thread]

[i]

And Xyelin, first of all, I never said I was Canadian, and second, go pound sand up your ass.

So then, you not Canadian but you clearly speak for all of them? That itself is rather myoptic. I love the irony.
Have a nice afternoon.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by HarmNone]

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Xyelin
So then, you not Canadian but you clearly speak for all of them? That itself is rather myoptic. I love the irony.

I don't think Psykos was capable of using words like "myopic" (even though the above user spelled it wrong). Either way, you're still no better then him.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by HarmNone]

[DeV]

It's interesting to me what other countries think regarding our politics just like we are interested in the politics of countries outside of our own, clearly. Their opinions don't make a difference or any real impact when it comes down to it but it doesn't stop people from expressing their ideas regarding us.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Your ignorance continues to shine through. The thread is about what Canadians as a whole think about Bush being re-elected. My first e-mail of the morning was from a Canadian concerned about the outcome of the election. This isn't the opinion of one person, clearly.

And Xyelin, first of all, I never said I was Canadian, and second, go pound sand up your ass.

The stretch this reporter is making that all Canadians are upset about the election would be like me saying that all Americans are upset about the election. This election clearly polorized the country and the world.

You are trying to make the case that Kerry would have made a better President regarding foreign policy. That sir is what we call an opinion. Your ignorance is shining through when you believe your opinion is better than anyone else's.. much less 51% of the rest of the country.

So in conclusion.. fuck off.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Tsunami
Your ignorance continues to shine through. The thread is about what Canadians as a whole think about Bush being re-elected. My first e-mail of the morning was from a Canadian concerned about the outcome of the election. This isn't the opinion of one person, clearly.

And Xyelin, first of all, I never said I was Canadian, and second, go pound sand up your ass.

The stretch this reporter is making that all Canadians are upset about the election would be like me saying that all Americans are upset about the election. This election clearly polorized the country and the world.

You are trying to make the case that Kerry would have made a better President regarding foreign policy. That sir is what we call an opinion. Your ignorance is shining through when you believe your opinion is better than anyone else's.. much less 51% of the rest of the country.

So in conclusion.. fuck off.

As the article I posted said an Ekos-Reid poll determined more Canadians prefered Kerry to Bush as President.

I have made no claim on whose opinion is better or correct I have just posted some International reactions.

[Parkbandit]

We can all be thankful that Canadians are not Americans then.

[Tsunami]

My my my, such anger.

I don't remember saying anything about Kerry, and I'm not trying to make any kind of a case. I am simply trying to get you to understand that they countries outside of the US borders do matter, in opinion and elsewhere.

The US and Canada have shared a long history of friendship, they share a border, they share the Great Lakes, trade, employment, willingness to help one another, and the list goes on.

To simply not care what Canada, or any outside country feels about the US election could be a large mistake, that is my point.

Oh, and I'm not a sir.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
We can all be thankful that Canadians are not Americans then.

Not yet the slow insidious Canadian invasion has begun. It starts with Beer and comedians and ends with every American wearing a toque. American will soon be under Canadian control.

http://www.ahalenia.com/da/vod8/8canuck.html

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Oh, and I'm not a sir.

And people laughed at me when I said gender should be a part of someone's profile.

omg <3 Tsunami

don't be mean to her, she's cool.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsunami
My my my, such anger.

I don't remember saying anything about Kerry, and I'm not trying to make any kind of a case. I am simply trying to get you to understand that they countries outside of the US borders do matter, in opinion and elsewhere.

The US and Canada have shared a long history of friendship, they share a border, they share the Great Lakes, trade, employment, willingness to help one another, and the list goes on.

To simply not care what Canada, or any outside country feels about the US election could be a large mistake, that is my point.

Oh, and I'm not a sir.

Sorry about the sir.. I took a 50/50 shot.. and lost. Name doesn't reflect your sex.

My point is.. I had the choice between 2 candidates. I chose the one that I felt was best for my life and my country's welfare. You can agree with that or disagree with that.. but the absolute LAST thing I would use as a deciding factor for selecting my President is what someone in Canada thinks about it. Sorry.. you can call me ignorant and selfish and self centered all day.. but that is the truth.

And I simply do not see Kerry as a better choice when it comes to domestic or foreign policy. Again.. my opinion and my choice. Thus my vote.

And there's no anger in my posts here. These forums are used for my entertainment purposes.. if I felt any anger, I would simply find something else to do.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
"Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that — except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council"http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

In brief: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"
"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"
" Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);"
As the article I posted said an Ekos-Reid poll determined more Canadians prefered Kerry to Bush as President. And we all know how accurate polls are. :D

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Xyelin
So then, you not Canadian but you clearly speak for all of them? That itself is rather myoptic. I love the irony.

I don't think Psykos was capable of using words like "myopic" (even though the above user spelled it wrong). Either way, you're still no better then him.

Yeah I did spell it incorrectly as I do in the heat of typing responses but have no fear I have completed my college edumacation. I am not psykos sorry to dissapoint. I am also not usually this fired up but some shit just pisses me off.


Anyway, can't we all just get along? Mebbe listen to some nice soothing rap music or even gamble on the ferry from Rochester NY to Toronto across the mighty Ontario lake, we can just stay on the ferry all day and drink and be merry. ( and gamble) and mebbe go look for some hookers at the Royal York?

I'm over the politics and hostility especially considering I have a great like of Canada.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by HarmNone]

[Xcalibur]

Bush = safer world for 4 more years.

By safer, if it means more blood and deaths for some countries, so be it.

And soon we will all have electrical/hydrogen motors, so booh the rebels!

And wanting to add that most intellectual workers that I happen to know are happy with that.



[Edited on 4-11-04 by Xcalibur]

[Alarke]

I usually try to stay out of the heated political issues, but this is just too easy to jump right into. PB you are entirely correct - ENTIRELY. This being my opinion, i'll explain why:

Every American over the age of 18 that has registered has the right to vote for who they believe is the best candidate for the President of the United States of America. With that being the case, we are expected to be selfish, and vote for who WE think is best, not who others have influenced us to think.

The United States is great that way. If foreign affairs is not what concerns PB, then he doesnt need to give a shit, and that will be reflected in his vote. If anyone feels that other countries respect for us is most important, then that is THEIR choice and their vote, no one elses.

If you believe that Kerry was a better man for foreign affairs, then vote for him, but do not criticize another American citizen that at least DOES vote for not letting your opinion or anyone elses sway their thoughts that foreign affairs is important, he may or may not be wrong but that is his vote.

I personally did not think that Kerry cutting defense spendings by billions and "attempting to increase foreign allies" campaign was true or even if it was true, that it was the safest thing for ME. I'm truly sorry if Canada, which is known as an extremely liberal nation, does not like the election of a republican president, but that does not concern me personally. As PB said, if they care so much about how our country is run, move here and become a citizen. As a whole, i think that abortion is the womans choice and that gay marriage should be allowed, but im not going to vote for kerry because of those two issues because to be totally honest? Im not going to be pregnant and im not going to want to marry a guy. You may think im an ass for saying that, but these are issues that will never effect me, and that is why we each get a vote.

In all honesty, i've accepted everyones opinion here as a valid thought, and wasn't even going to post mine, but i feel it explains my views a bit better. Yes you may think that people are wrong for being selfish in this election, but isnt that the point? to vote on what you consider important issues for YOU.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Alarke
PB you are entirely correct - ENTIRELY.

::watches at PB's head explodes::

One less republican vote in 4 years.

[Parkbandit]

Please.. tell me something I didn't already know.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Please.. tell me something I didn't already know.

::edited because you probably already know you're a douchebag::

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Wezas]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
"Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that — except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council"http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

In brief: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"
"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"
" Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);"
As the article I posted said an Ekos-Reid poll determined more Canadians prefered Kerry to Bush as President. And we all know how accurate polls are. :D


In 1991 Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions and invaded another sovereign nation. In 1991 it was a UN war. In 2003-2004 Iraq hadn't violated any UN resolutions and didn't invade another country so America has violated International law by invading Iraq.

The Gallup polls had Bush and Kerry neck & neck. The vote verified this.

The Canadian polls aren't even close. Canadians vastly prefer Kerry.

[GSTamral]

I have and always will maintain the belief that the job of the American President has never been to appease foreign leaders and foreign people. America comes first.

Call it a pitbull mentality, but we vote for America, not for the world. What the rest of the world thinks should not influence our vote.

[xtc]

Originally posted by GSTamral
I have and always will maintain the belief that the job of the American President has never been to appease foreign leaders and foreign people. America comes first.

Call it a pitbull mentality, but we vote for America, not for the world. What the rest of the world thinks should not influence our vote.


I agree with you. However a President’s job shouldn't be to antagonise the rest of the world.

Media from much of the world has been covering the US election and the build up to it. After 9-11, the Iraq war, the 2000 election fiasco and a very close race you shouldn’t be surprised that the world has been watching you for the past few days. Neither should it come as a surprise that they have and will comment on it. Especially in the Global village that we live in one’s nations actions affect another.

Bush attacked a sovereign nation because he believed it posed a threat to America by possessing weapons of mass destruction. Maybe the world is assessing that Bush is a threat to the world and there fore a pre-emptive strike is in order.
:lol:

[GSTamral]

I agree XTC, but I believe we should judge the president's actions based on what we feel about those actions, not based on what Canadians, or any other nation's people, think

[xtc]

Originally posted by GSTamral
I agree XTC, but I believe we should judge the president's actions based on what we feel about those actions, not based on what Canadians, or any other nation's people, think

Yes I agree it is American's choice. I am in a unique position as I am both an American and a Canadian. I think we shouldn't ignore other nations opinions of us or our President. Neither should we pander to everyone. I have always sensed an isolationist mentally in America and reluctance to accept criticism.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by GSTamral
I agree XTC, but I believe we should judge the president's actions based on what we feel about those actions, not based on what Canadians, or any other nation's people, think

Yes I agree it is American's choice. I am in a unique position as I am both an American and a Canadian. I think we shouldn't ignore other nations opinions of us or our President. Neither should we pander to everyone. I have always sensed an isolationist mentally in America and reluctance to accept criticism.

Uhm,.. you sense an isolationist metality?

Isolationist
Definition: [n] an advocate of isolationism in international affairs
[adj] of or relating to isolationism

Isolationism:
Definition: [n] a policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations

I don't think we have an isolationist mentality.



[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Xyelin]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by GSTamral
I agree XTC, but I believe we should judge the president's actions based on what we feel about those actions, not based on what Canadians, or any other nation's people, think

Yes I agree it is American's choice. I am in a unique position as I am both an American and a Canadian. I think we shouldn't ignore other nations opinions of us or our President. Neither should we pander to everyone. I have always sensed an isolationist mentally in America and reluctance to accept criticism.

Uhm,.. you sense an isolationist metality?

Isolationist
Definition: [n] an advocate of isolationism in international affairs
[adj] of or relating to isolationism

Isolationism:
Definition: [n] a policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations

Your confused son.

Fuck haven't you gone home yet. Your born in 1977, I am not your son, junior.

Please disregard my posts so I don't have to have anything to do with you.

"Isolationism is a diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations"

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/i/is/isolationism.html

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/isolationism_mar02.shtml

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by xtc]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
In 1991 Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions and invaded another sovereign nation. In 1991 it was a UN war. In 2003-2004 Iraq hadn't violated any UN resolutions and didn't invade another country so America has violated International law by invading Iraq.I should have posted another line; namely, "Recognizing ... Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions". Apparently the UN disagrees with you.
The Gallup polls had Bush and Kerry neck & neck. The vote verified this.Zogby got it wrong. Electoral-vote got it wrong. 2 to 1, man. :)
The Canadian polls aren't even close. Canadians vastly prefer Kerry. That, however, is a different story. I'd be more willing to accept a poll's accuracy if it has one guy ahead by like 70%. Assuming, of course, there aren't 9 other polls that say the opposite or that they are even or what-have-you.

[xtc]

quote]Originally posted by Latrinsorm
[]I should have posted another line; namely, "Recognizing ... Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions". Apparently the UN disagrees with you.

[/quote]Zogby got it wrong. Electoral-vote got it wrong. 2 to 1, man. :)

[/quote]

Iraq was compliant with UN resolutions in 2003, and non compliance with UN resolutions isn’t a reason to invade. See what I posted earlier re: UN Charter. If violation of a UN resolution was reason enough to invade a country, Israel would have been invaded a 100 times.

2004 Election results. Gallup poll had a margin of error of 4%. Seems the polls were right on.

Popular vote

George W. Bush 59,209,925 51.07%
John Kerry 55,638,551 47.99%

[Hulkein]

<<Zogby got it wrong. Electoral-vote got it wrong. 2 to 1, man. >>

Isn't it funny that the polling agency all the liberals were saying had skewed polling to favor republicans (Gallup) ended up being pretty close to correct?

Also, www.rasmussenreports.com nailed it.

[Warriorbird]

I can't wait for our conquest of the rest of the Middle East and the draft. Maybe then I'll get some damn lower gas prices. If we're gonna be international pariahs the public at least ought to benefit.

[Alarke]

Anyone that claims America is an isolationist nation needs to look at some history books, because it's way off.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Iraq was compliant with UN resolutions in 2003,Ok. They weren't. I don't get how we can disagree on this, when the resolution clearly states that they aren't.
and non compliance with UN resolutions isn’t a reason to invade.Generally speaking, no. But when the resolution goes "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area", it's pretty clear that force is authorized when Iraq starts biting the old thumb.

Anyone who says Bush is bringing in the draft is on the same level as, if not lower than, Cheney's "Elect Kerry and get blown up" spiel.

[Warriorbird]

Heh, never can tell. I could see both statements as being correct.

[GSTamral]

<<<
I can't wait for our conquest of the rest of the Middle East and the draft. Maybe then I'll get some damn lower gas prices. If we're gonna be international pariahs the public at least ought to benefit.
>>>



Warriorbird, I'd be willing to bet one month's salary against one month of yours that a draft doesn't happen under Bush. We can create the account whenever you wish through a fidelity or schwab broker, which I will arrange whenever you want.

Yes I am fully aware that one month's salary of mine may be significantly greater, but as far as I am concerned, this is free money. U2U me, or IM me if you actually want to back up your statement.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by GSTamral]

[Warriorbird]

You're probably right on that count, realistically. I do see Wolfowitz style proactive conquest going further, but an actual draft would probably set the Republican Congress back a fair bit... and that'd be a bad thing for the Republicans.

If I believed it, I'd bet. It'd be the smart move. At my current job, you probably do double or triple my salary. I took a pretty healthy pay cut from the previous.

Edited to add, yeah you're making double now. Which makes me sad, but hey... I have to deal with less credit applications now.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Warriorbird]

[Ravenstorm]

A draft would be political suicide for them. Never happen.

Raven

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
Iraq was compliant with UN resolutions in 2003,Ok. They weren't. I don't get how we can disagree on this, when the resolution clearly states that they aren't.
and non compliance with UN resolutions isn’t a reason to invade.Generally speaking, no. But when the resolution goes "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area", it's pretty clear that force is authorized when Iraq starts biting the old thumb.

Anyone who says Bush is bringing in the draft is on the same level as, if not lower than, Cheney's "Elect Kerry and get blown up" spiel.

Those resolutions were reporting resolution, essentially that Iraq must provide free access to UN Inspectors and provided an accounting of weapons.

Iraq dragged it's heels but they did provide access to UN Inspectors so they were late but eventually compliant.

However the UN Charter which is The Constitution of the UN and which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, states quite clearly:

Except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council

So America was in violation of International Law when it attacked Iraq.

[Warriorbird]

We've violated international law quite frequently.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
We've violated international law quite frequently.

I think this was the first time America violated the UN charter but I could be wrong.

[Warriorbird]

Well. The Geneva Convention, at the least.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by xtc

Except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council

So America was in violation of International Law when it attacked Iraq.

Questions:

Was the (let's call it a police action?) in Bosnia and Kosovo approved by the U.N.?

Did Canada participate?

Under the above definition how many countries violate international law?

C/Valth it's going to be a long,long day

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by xtc

Except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council

So America was in violation of International Law when it attacked Iraq.

Then the question becomes, What constitutes an armed attack? Shooting a jets patrolling the no fly zone?

[xtc]

I paraphrased from the UN Charter which states an armed attack on your home soil.