Bush Must Go

[Advocat]

I am vastly amused at the "quiet war with French" concept... but we'll leave that alone. Could the Turkish decision have been influenced by the French threat... possibly, even likely.

What is of more interest was that Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan had been only elected weeks before the invasion decision had to be made, that he had a precarious hold on power, that he was overseeing a divisive parliament with opposition groups -- and even some of Recep's own faction -- heavily against the US use of Turkey. A Turkish government poll showed 8 out of 10 citizens were against the use of Turkey as a base/staging area. Gee, I wonder if this could have something to do with the thumbs down from the government? Democracy, you know? Billions of US dollars of "inducement" notwithstanding

As for "Canada's excuse", it's easy. Remember that democracy thing? The majority of the people of Canada were against the invasion. The government of Canada never changed it's platform... they said before, during and after the whole shebang that they'd only support an invasion if it was UN approved. Simple position, what's the problem? Nothing hidden, nothing sneaky, just a statement of policy and intent. When Bush speaks, the rest of the world does not just "take dictation".

Now, don't think I excuse Cretien's and the Liberal government's slam/insult binge on George Bush and US during this period... there was no excuse for that. It was playing to the cameras in the hopes of getting some more votes. It most definitely blackened Canada's eye in the view of many Americans, and of the Liberal government for quite a few Canadians as well. That was not the way responsible government should have been exercised (which is why I can't wait till the New Year when Cretien leaves!)

However, as a soverign country, Canada had every right not to participate, and to state the conditions under which they would be willing to take part.

BTW, loved the fantasy about French oil... obviously, someone's been reading from the same book as those who blame the whole invasion on Dick Cheney and his pet oil companies. Ah, conspiracies!

[Hugo]

BTW, loved the fantasy about French oil

Oh, it's a fantasy now? What evidence do you have that disproves it? Oh, that's right, none, because all that I said is backed up by documents from the very people involved - except that which was obviously speculation.

It just seems suspect to me how keen Chretien is to damage Canadian relations with its most important trading partner, when his personal interests are well served by doing so.

The fact is that those accusing the US of self-interest and corruption were the most guilty of those traits themselves.

[Advocat]

because all that I said is backed up by documents from the very people involved

Oh, I won't dispute your facts, just like I don't dispute the listing of various oil company boards that Cheney has been chair or CEO of. They're matters of record. But the "obvious speculation" you mention -- otherwise known as conspiracy theories -- well then, it's just like the Cheney/Big Oil theories of the Iraq war.

Chretien doesn't give a crap about Canada. He is interested in his family's money, and he has and will continue to sell Canada down the river for his personal prosperity, undermining trade links and diplomatic relations with Canada's biggest trading partner so that his relatives can get rich

Well, you've just moved from a listing a facts and made a huge leap to a fantasy you've decided must be true. Of course, if you have proof of these actions, please pass them on to me and I'll send them on to the RCMP and CSIS, as these actions would enable us to get rid of Chretien even faster!

[Hugo]

Not at all - it's speculation, and I posted it as such.

Here are the facts that lead me to my conclusions:

Canada's interests are best served by maintaining good relations with the US, on which a large portion of the Canadian economy depends.

Canada has little to do with France, except family ties with Chretien himself, of course. And Albertan oil.

Bearing this in mind, Chretien takes it upon himself to condemn US foreign policy, allow his ministers to make the most crass of insults towards Americans and their politicians without repercussion, and lets Canada get the shaft in trade disputes with the US, while he cozies up to France.

It seems to me that Chretien is not terribly interested in what is good for Canada, and is more interested in forging closer ties with France - with whom, it should be noted, he has family connections.

UNLESS you take into account Chretien's family interests, his policy makes little rational sense. I especially find the idea that he is a "man of principle" laughable - what would you call a "devout Catholic" who is pro-gay-marriage and pro-abortion, other than a self-deceiving liar whose ethics are as elastic as his French counterpart's?

[Hugo]

he said iraq and alqueda are close allies

he said the alumin tubes were for nukes

he said he knows where there are massive WMD stockpiles

he endorsed the british idea that they could launch in 45 minutes

he endorsed the british idea they tried to get uranium from africa

SirRiff,

I could debunk all of your half-baked claims, however, there's a good reason I won't:

I already did, along with others, in at least 4 separate threads. Maybe more, I can't remember. Every time you have your theories shot down and are unable to defend yourself with either fact or logic. You simply desert the thread when it's obvious that you are looking foolish, only to make exactly the same original contentions in another, as though it never happened.

Well, Riff, it did happen. You have proven yourself unable to defend this viewpoint time and time again, and unless you can come up with something new (which I doubt), I will have to ask you to either put up or shut up.