1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I hate my president !!!

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Fredus, Jan 7, 2003.

  1. Fredus

    Fredus Registered User

    Well here it is. My first serious thread on these forums. And some people are going to be surprised, I'm going to actually bash my own President: Mr Chirac. I've never liked the guy that much, but for the last 3-4 years, it's been downhill. While I appreciate the fact that he was able to push for the return of the UN in Iraq, able to change the text of the resolution, the fact that he's still against a military action in Iraq except for a UN one, I feel he's not standing up enough against Bush. And actually I'm pretty pissed that nobody is standing up against the guy.
    If he's against this war, as he should, well he should say strongly so and try to impose whatever sanction he can on the US. But no, all he says is : "This is a bad idea, but we're ready for it" ... Sometime I feel ashame ... Really. I don't even know why we spend so much on military in France ... It's just not worth it. We should stay neutral. Better be neutral than having a population ashamed of its government decision. I know I am.

    Well that was my rant of the day.

  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member


    An honest appraisal, Fredus, nothing to be ashamed about. Chirac HAS issues but much more than just the issue of Iraq. I believe his internal politics are not horrid but could do a lot more for the general economy.
  3. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    It's OK to hate Chirac. After all, so do we. :)
  4. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Well, since we're bashing our country's leaders, I'd like to take a few pot shots at Jean Cretien for a similar <i>gonadious minimus</i> stance. Cretien initially came out pretty strong against the US, but we all know what will happen. When the time comes, Canada will be there. But I find it hard to blame Cretien for bowing to US pressure. Unfortunately, Canada has once again found itself in a difficult situation -- the preverbal "between a rock and a hard place".

    Here's how I see it. Canada is a peaceful nation. We don't police the world. We haven't overthrown governments, sold arms to terrorists to fund other terrorists, or dropped atomic weapons on ususpecting citizens. Our foriegn interests are minimal, and we generally get along with overyone. Our economy sucks, and our health care system is at a crisis point, but compared to our giant neighbor (in might and population only) we have little crime to speak of. All in all, a pretty decent place to live.

    So, why should Canada back the US in its questionable actions against Iraq? Why should Canada become complicit in what the vast majority of its citizens feel is an unjust war? There are three reasons I can think of (at the moment, they are largely off the top of my head... but I can't think of any other reasons to explain it):

    1. Middle Eastern perceptions of the US include Canada. I'm not sure there's a big distinction made. The "evil Americans" include Canadians. This means that Canada is subject to the same threat of terror (perhaps to a lesser magnitude) as the US. But who's going to protect us? We have no real military. We have armed forces, and a few good boats (being generous), but no airforce to speak of.

    2. Economically speaking, can Canada afford to give up a peice of the pie (however slim it might be) of the spoils of war? There's a hell of a lot of oil over there, and the US could have some fairly substantial controlling interests in how that oil is distributed, should the US (and Britian) take control of the Iraqi oil fields, which they probably will.

    3. Canada may be a bunch of nice guys, who don't step on anyone's toes, but we pay out so little in foriegn aid that it's mere pocket change. Who's favors could we call in should we find ourselves at the receiving end of terrorist activity? Britian might humour us.

    Now, it's not like Rumsfled is sitting by his phone waiting for Canada to call and say "Ok, we're here for you". I think they could actually care less, given what we have to offer in military support (though we do have some damn fine snipers I hear). But it's not our military force the US wants, it's our voice which says "we support you". So, in closing, as much as I'd like to see Canada take a strong stance against a US led invasion of Iraq, if it happens, you can bet we'll be along for the ride (in body, perhaps not in spirit).
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Nice post, Coriolis. :thumbsup:
  6. aedumo

    aedumo Veteran Member

    ahhh, canada that big state(51st) up north. hey just kiddin, canada's like our little brother, dont F*ck with them or you'll be hearing from us.
  7. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    There''s nothing wrong with a country being neutral. The Swiss did it for many years. A nation first must do what is right for its people and the leaders listen to their voice. If Chirac feels as strongly as you do then he should have the courage of his convictions. I'm sure DeGaulle would if alive and in power.
  8. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Okay, define 'neutral'...I think if you check, you'll find the Swiss definition to be synonymous with complicit or tacitly approving. :p
  9. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    Well, I like to think of the 'ideal' meaning of the term... point well taken, however. The banks did not get profitable without, how shall we say, advantageous deals.
  10. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    While I have issues with the neutrality of Switzerland in WWII I think it must be ralized that if they were not serving a purpose for Adoph they would have been eliminated pretty quickly. While definitely not a bastion of courage I find it difficult to damn them for surviving. Same for the Swedes.
  11. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Well then if your going to be actually neutral in the War, then I really see no need to defend your country anymore. If we cannot count upon your support when we need it, then what good are you? Why should you be treated like an ally if your not going to behave like one.

    I don't mean that you have to send troops to Iraq if you don't support going to war there, like Vietnam. But you could be an ally and maybe control your own airports, so we don't have to worry about more terrorist coming over the border from Canada. There is a difference in going to war and not supporting us, maybe you could fund your ships and build a navy that is not completely strapped for trained sailors. Then you could protect the areas around yourself instead of depending upon our warships.

    I really don't think your country as a nation are capable of fighting a war at the present levels of your troop funding and you should keep your troops at home. I also don't want to hear about Canadian whining about "our troops got hurt in a combat zone." I have seen the camera video, now that it was released, it definately looks like ground to air fire, and because there was no return fire. The assumption by pilots if they are not firing at something firing at them, they must be firing upwards.

    That and the Speed they are giving pilots, which makes people jittery and on edge to react, makes me feel that the pilots did nothing wrong now, this is an Air Force Command problem for Medical for the Speed and with the Commander of their Reserve Squadron for an incomplete briefing pack. I hope this gets overturned on appeal now, Speed makes you react quickly and reduces restraint.

    I am wondering why they didn't get the stay-awake pills they tested in Desert Storm, all they do is suppress the production of the hormone which causes the brain to want to go to sleep. It was oval shaped pill about half the size of a Tylenol Gelcap. I loved those things but they might of had side effects that I am now not aware of. 48 hours as sharp as a tack the whole time, 72 in a pinch then 8 hours sleep for the next three days and a normal awake schedule and you could do it again if needed. I only used them when beyond the line of contact.

    The Royal Canadian Air Force preformed well in Desert Storm for their squadrons they contributed, but they didn't do anything but normal bomb runs with their aircraft. Their is a difference in supporting your ally actively and inactively, we supported Great Britain during the Falklands by allowing them to withdraw their NATO commitment and covering its lost. However we did not send any forces, the British didn't ask us to. They were very happy with that noncombat support.

    The French are the French, they will oppose us on that we are to violent, then go blow-up International Protest Groups ships. I wouldn't hurry to much to be like the French. I mean you may disagree with us, and not directly support our efforts, but if you go to the point of remaining neutral then, any and all agreements we had (yes past tense), are instantly up for renegotiation, especially most favored nation status, NATO, NAFTA, Fishing Treaties, etc... We negotiated those with Canada, our allied neighbor to the North, not neutral Canada.
  12. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    There's a very real reason why Canada and France join in the efforts even after denouncing the idea. Even IF their populations may not support such action...

    It's going to happen anyway. If it's going to happen anyway, committing even a token amount of effort gives you a stake in the aftermath.

    That's why the seemingly hypocritical stance by those politicians. It may leave a bad taste in your mouths, but politically, it's a shrewd move.
  13. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    As some already mentioned, I do not believe in neutrality and it has never really existed in world wars. I'd rather have a country like Switzerland or Sweden trying to block the efforts of the Nazis. Perhaps more lives would have been saved, perhaps the war would have ended sooner.
  14. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    The population in Canada is pretty much evenly split on the Iraq issue. It's Ottawa that's dragging their heels. Get that mealy mouthed frog out of there and put a Prime Minister there with some big brass ones and you'd see a definite shift in what comes out of the government here.
  15. jamming

    jamming Banned

    They vote for their government and they get what they vote for, Biker. I would no more want to change that for them than I hope that they would for us. Would though I could let them have the option of Iraq for a neighbor and see how much happier they would be.
  16. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Got that right. Swiss neutrality--a giant myth or legend. Neutral only when its in their best interests as determined by them.

    Largest supplier of arms to Germany during WWII than any other country. Sympathetic to Germany in the war. Just asked the crews of our few bombers that landed there in WWII. (Landed there for the wrong reasons.)
  17. Leopoldo Niilus

    Leopoldo Niilus Registered User

  18. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member


  19. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    LOL! That's a good one, Leopoldo.
  20. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Last year President Chirac explained his views on US policy to Iraq thus: "In life, you know, one must not confuse friends with sycophants It's better to have only a few friends than to have a lot of sycophants. And I'm telling you that France considers itself one of the friends of the Americans, not necessarily one of its sycophants."

Share This Page