Cheney cancels speech in Canada due to safety concerns ‎

[Guest American Woman]

Hmmmm, so you will whine about kimmy speaking for an entire church but you can speak for an entire country?

As you would say: times infinity (or some other such nonsense).

Grow up. Then look at the post I was responding to. Next note that I had included a *wink* emoticon. After that, look up the definition of whining. Then last but not least, look in the mirror for the nonsense of which you speak. (times infinity)

Edited April 8, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

Grow up. Then look at the post I was responding to. Next note that I had included a *wink* emoticon. After that, look up the definition of whining. Then last but not least, look in the mirror for the nonsense of which you speak. (times infinity)

Oh, AW, you always have to have the last word, don't you?

[cybercoma]

Oh, AW, you always have to have the last word, don't you?

I love the irony of telling you to grow up before going into her juvenile rant.

[Guest Peeves]

Hold on a second there buddy!

Cretein did not allow Canada to go into Iraq!

Iraq was the turning point for the US.Before Iraq there was still much sympathy for the US after 9-11.

WWWTT

Canada did go into Iraq in Desert Storm.

he Persian Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War, was a war waged by a UN-authorized coalition force from 34 nations led by the United States, against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

[stopstaaron]

Hold on a second there buddy!

Cretein did not allow Canada to go into Iraq!

Iraq was the turning point for the US.Before Iraq there was still much sympathy for the US after 9-11.

WWWTT

Hate to tell ya this but Chretien lied to our faces.. we did help our allies in Iraq.. in fact we helped more than 95 % of the countries

who were in the coalition of the willing... in fact if it weren't for Canada the US would have had a lot of trouble during the invasion

so we helped them and now they owe us

[Guest Peeves]

It's good that he's scared. Too bad GW Bush wasn't scared. Our country is better off with them staying away.

I fail to understand the rational that seems to stand on the refusal to allow someone to openly speak in a Canadian venue. Are we not a democracy? Do we deny the rights of free speech on a selective basis?

Did our soldiers not fight for the right for all to stand for a purpose,a freedom an opinion?

It behooves those that would prevent a speaker that they differ with on subjects, things even that may offend them, to think of the path they take. It's the path of our enemies. It's the path of the godless and fascists and dictators and the censors. Everyman should be allowed equal rights to speak, to write, to be heard, or we become our own enemy, an enemy that fears ideas or contrary views.

Shame on those that would disallow one they disagree with a forum. Shame!

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]

[stopstaaron]

Cheney is welcome to give his speech and people are allowed to protest.. the man should be tried as a war criminal though

that is why people are upset

[Guest Peeves]

Cheney is welcome to give his speech and people are allowed to protest.. the man should be tried as a war criminal though

that is why people are upset

That opinion is one held by a few yes. And they are allowed to call him names and to judge him. People are allowed to protest his opinions and curriculum vitæ to screen and judge if they may like or dislike, but!

That gives them no more rights than he to freedom of expression, to a forum. Objectors that call him names would deny him what they themselves expect, free speech.

If he's a 'war criminal' then there a great many that he follows, perhaps dating to the founding fathers that led a revolution, rebellion, that cost so many their lives.

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington, that led an insurrection, war criminals?

Aye, people are allowed to protest, but peacefully, lest they too then become criminals.

[bleeding heart]

Cheney is welcome to give his speech and people are allowed to protest.. the man should be tried as a war criminal though

that is why people are upset

Sure, people don't like Cheney. He's a controversial figure.

But, as you say, there is no good reason to stop him from speaking.

Or even if there is good reason, the reasons to allow it outweigh the bad, on free speech principles.

Canada's slightly backwards in this regard, slightly regressive, as are most countries, actually.

[stopstaaron]

If he's a 'war criminal' then there a great many that he follows, perhaps dating to the founding fathers that led a revolution, rebellion, that cost so many their lives.

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington, that led an insurrection, war criminals?

What Those men did and what Cheney did are entirely different

they fought for their freedom.. all cheney wanted was money and in the process Iraqis were slaughtered for no reason

i doubt the founding fathers mislead their people

[The_Squid]

Your country sure didn't feel that way when Bush didn't make Canada his first Presidential visit

Most people didn't really care I don't think. There were some that had issues with our closest ally "ignoring" us and were vocal about it in the media, but I wouldn't say that it was anything more than a shrug and a roll of the eyes for most people. It made for great forum-fodder, but that doesn't gauge the feeling of a nation.

Plus there is a difference between a sitting president making an official visit and an ex-president making money by giving speeches justifying acts of war.

I fail to understand the rational that seems to stand on the refusal to allow someone to openly speak in a Canadian venue. Are we not a democracy? Do we deny the rights of free speech on a selective basis?

I did not say that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. I said I was glad he was scared to cross the border. I do not believe there were any credible threats, no one was stopping him from speaking and i doubt that he would be unsafe.... but I am glad that was his perception.

[Guest American Woman]

Most people didn't really care I don't think. There were some that had issues with our closest ally "ignoring" us and were vocal about it in the media, but I wouldn't say that it was anything more than a shrug and a roll of the eyes for most people. It made for great forum-fodder, but that doesn't gauge the feeling of a nation.

Plus there is a difference between a sitting president making an official visit and an ex-president making money by giving speeches justifying acts of war.

Cheney was actually never president - and how do you know what he would have to say? Perhaps he'd even talk about Canada's involvement in the war. Perhaps he would be more candid about that than your country has been. That would be a good thing, right? And what about the opportunity to question his views? Why would you want to jeopardize that?

I did not say that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. I said I was glad he was scared to cross the border. I do not believe there were any credible threats, no one was stopping him from speaking and i doubt that he would be unsafe.... but I am glad that was his perception.

It's been pointed out repeatedly why his security could have been at risk - it was a very real possibility. That you are "glad" that he is "scared to cross the border" says that you are glad the protests turned so violent last time he was in Canada that it took police in riot gear hours to control the crowd so Cheney could safely leave the building. Other people were victims of the crowd's violence.

Edited April 9, 2012 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Cheney was actually never president - and how do you know what he would have to say? Perhaps he'd even talk about Canada's involvement in the war. Perhaps he would be more candid about that than your country has been. That would be a good thing, right?

I can't see it as a bad thing, but it seems profoundly unlikely.

[The_Squid]

Cheney was actually never president

We were talking about the pres. I was quoting you about the pres. Keep up.

That you are "glad" that he is "scared to cross the border" says that you are glad the protests turned so violent last time he was in Canada that it took police in riot gear hours to control the crowd so Cheney could safely leave the building. Other people were victims of the crowd's violence.

Nope. Not glad there was violence. Violent "protestors" should be shot (with rubber bullets and tear gas). But his being scared of Canada is funny. He visited Iraq during a war, but Canada??? WAY too dangerous! Lol

[Guest American Woman]

We were talking about the pres. I was quoting you about the pres. Keep up.

Yet the pres wasn't the one being paid to speak in Canada, so I have no idea what you were talking about.

Nope. Not glad there was violence. Violent "protestors" should be shot (with rubber bullets and tear gas). But his being scared of Canada is funny. He visited Iraq during a war, but Canada??? WAY too dangerous! Lol

So what's your take on the fact that it took police in riot gear hours to get the crowd under control? Do you think perhaps there was a security issue - or are your police so imcompetent that they can't control a peaceful crowd, even when using riot gear?

As for Iraq, the U.S. controlled the security - and I doubt if Cheney invited the public at large, announcing ahead of time where he would be and when. Do you think otherwise?

The fact that you think Cheney's security being questionable in Canada is a joke says a lot about your position on this issue.

From the link I provided:

On September 26, 2011, a large group of thugs attempted to block the entrance to the Vancouver Club. Their actions put the patrons, event staff, and Vice President Cheney in danger. The Vice President was unable to leave the premises for over seven hours until these violent protestors were dispersed. During these protests, patrons were physically assaulted outside the Vancouver Club.

Yeah, that's something to downplay and laugh about, eh? You're not exactly putting your country in a good light.

[The_Squid]

Yet the pres wasn't the one being paid to speak in Canada, so I have no idea what you were talking about.

So what's your take on the fact that it took police in riot gear hours to get the crowd under control? Do you think perhaps there was a security issue - or are your police so imcompetent that they can't control a peaceful crowd, even when using riot gear?

As for Iraq, the U.S. controlled the security - and I doubt if Cheney invited the public at large, announcing ahead of time where he would be and when. Do you think otherwise?

The fact that you think Cheney's security being questionable in Canada is a joke says a lot about your position on this issue.

From the link I provided:

On September 26, 2011, a large group of thugs attempted to block the entrance to the Vancouver Club. Their actions put the patrons, event staff, and Vice President Cheney in danger. The Vice President was unable to leave the premises for over seven hours until these violent protestors were dispersed. During these protests, patrons were physically assaulted outside the Vancouver Club.

Yeah, that's something to downplay and laugh about, eh? You're not exactly putting your country in a good light.

The ex-pres has given at least one talk. 2009. Calgary.

The cops probably did do a poor job at removing a few thugs. They are not known for their riot control expertise.... Just the opposite in fact.

My country in a poor light? I'm saying it isn't as dangerous as Cheney thinks. That's putting it in a better light than the paranoid crazies that think it's a dangerous place!

Ryan Rupert, who is quoted in your link exaggerates the issue at the Vancouver Club I think.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/26/bc-dick-cheney-vancouver-protest.html

[GostHacked]

Canada did go into Iraq in Desert Storm.

One more time. Canada did not go to war with Iraq. Canadians did go into theater in Iraq because of an exchange program with the US military. The Canadian soldiers serving in US units had the option of going in fulfilling their obligations to the program and the unit, or they could come home.

People seem to keep missing this fact.

[Guest Manny]

One more time. Canada did not go to war with Iraq. Canadians did go into theater in Iraq because of an exchange program with the US military. The Canadian soldiers serving in US units had the option of going in fulfilling their obligations to the program and the unit, or they could come home.

People seem to keep missing this fact.

Indeed, the spinmasters always manage to extend every subtle fact to the point of absurdity.

[Guest American Woman]

One more time. Canada did not go to war with Iraq. Canadians did go into theater in Iraq because of an exchange program with the US military. The Canadian soldiers serving in US units had the option of going in fulfilling their obligations to the program and the unit, or they could come home.

People seem to keep missing this fact.

Canada most certainly was involved in the war in Iraq. Saying otherwise doesn't change the facts. The denial that some of you have, as well as the attempts to dismiss it - as you zero in on everything the U.S. does, has done, and you perceive ever will do - is truly incredible.

[Guest American Woman]

Indeed, the spinmasters always manage to extend every subtle fact to the point of absurdity.

I think you best look in the mirror.

[GostHacked]

Canada most certainly was involved in the war in Iraq. Saying otherwise doesn't change the facts. The denial that some of you have, as well as the attempts to dismiss it - as you zero in on everything the U.S. does, has done, and you perceive ever will do - is truly incredible.

Maybe you could post some evidence to back up your claim.

[GostHacked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

The Iraq War began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The government of Canada did not at any time formally declare war against Iraq. Nevertheless, the government of Canada, and Canadian citizens had complex relationships to that war. Those complex relationships evolved and were redefined at various points in that war.

While Canada had previously participated military action against Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991, it refused to declare war against Iraq without United Nations approval. Even so, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said on October 10, 2002 that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in Parliament on March 17, 2003 that Canada would not participate in the pending invasion. Nevertheless, he offered the US and its soldiers his moral support. Two days earlier, a quarter million people in Montreal had marched against the pending war. Major anti-war demonstrations had taken place in several other Canadian cities.

Canada's relation to the Iraq War that began in 2003 was unlike Canada's role in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan because it was far less direct. About a hundred Canadian exchange officers, on exchange to American units, participated in the invasion of Iraq.[1] It has been reported that Canadian troops in the region numbered less than only three other participating countries.[2] The War also affected Canada in the form of protests and counter-protests related to the conflict, and United States Military members who sought refuge in the country after deserting their posts to avoid deployment to Iraq.

Now that does not mean that Canada had no involvement, but not in the way some are portraying it in this thread.

Canada, despite not joining the invading coalition, still participated in the conflict in Iraq, joining a number of non-belligerent nations in helping to rebuild the country post-invasion, including the training of Iraqi police and army officers, and contributing approximately $300 million towards this effort. Also, a group of Canadians, including former Ontario Premier Bob Rae, were sent in the summer of 2005 to help compose the new Iraqi constitution, and Jean-Pierre Kingsley served as head of the international team observing the Iraqi legislative election of January 2005. Due to security concerns, both of these groups were based in Jordan.

[bleeding heart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

Now that does not mean that Canada had no involvement, but not in the way some are portraying it in this thread.

Whether or no, involvement is nevertheless quite different from opposition.

And in fact, all this was reported at the time, and the Government was criticized by the Opposition for the hypocrisy. (The Conservatives wanted Canada to be 100%, fully-fledged, totally in support of the catastrophe, for reasons of their own.)

So, yeah, Canada was involved.

But the most shameful part isn't the hypocrisy; the most shameful part is the involvement itself.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada and other nations picked-up the slack in Afghanistan while the Iraq invasion took place. That's called being involved.

Edited April 10, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

Canada and other nations picked-up the slack in Afghanistan while the Iraq invasion took place. That's called being involved.

Sure, I can see that. But I was talking about the more direct involvement.