U.S. Ambassadors

[newbie]

What's with these guys? First it was Paul Cellucci:

"When Canada refused to join the Iraq war, Cellucci said he was "disappointed and upset." When Canada refused to participate in the ill-advised US missile defense and space weapons programs, Cellucci and other American officials said the US would launch missiles into Canadian airspace anyway. Cellucci went so far as to say that Canada had given up its sovereignty by refusing to participate in the US military programs."

http://www.counterbias.com

And now Wilkins:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=election2006

Talk about bullying behaviour.

[Guest eureka]

Once again, we struck a nerve: a nerve that the Cheney gabg is desperately trying to anaesthetize since it is the same one a growing number of Americans are probing.

Apart from that, Wolkins should just shut up and stop trying to interfere in the election.

Does he think this is Iraq?

[Slavik44]

Once again, we struck a nerve: a nerve that the Cheney gabg is desperately trying to anaesthetize since it is the same one a growing number of Americans are probing.

Apart from that, Wolkins should just shut up and stop trying to interfere in the election.

Does he think this is Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope the 51st state, nobody gave him the memo that he was actually the ambassador not the governor.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Wolkins should just shut up and stop trying to interfere in the election.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=election2006

""" "Just think about this: What if one of our best friends criticized you directly and incorrectly almost relentlessly? What if that friend's agenda was to highlight your perceived flaws while avoiding mentioning your successes? What if that friend demanded respect but offered little in return?" Wilkins asked.

"Wouldn't that begin to sow the seeds of doubt in your mind about the strength of the friendship?" """

[Black Dog]

"Just think about this: What if one of our best friends criticized you directly and incorrectly almost relentlessly? What if that friend's agenda was to highlight your perceived flaws while avoiding mentioning your successes? What if that friend demanded respect but offered little in return?" Wilkins asked.

"Wouldn't that begin to sow the seeds of doubt in your mind about the strength of the friendship?"

Excuse me while I pass our little crybaby friend a hanky.

Where was I? Oh yeah: the U.S. and Canada are not "friends". They are allies and trading partners. Countries, being non-human entities, aren't capable of friendships. I couldn't ask the U.S. to help me move or count on them to call me a cab when I've had a few too many, like a real friend would do. 'cause it's a country and countries act according to their interests, which don't usually include carrying my couch up a set of stairs.

Long story short, there's a lot of meaningful criticism to be made about Martin's transparent pandering to Canadian's well-established fear and loathing of the U.S.A. But for this clown Wilkins to act like he overheard us spreading rumours about the U.S. behind the portables after gym class is insulting.

[Guest eureka]

A New York Times editorialpraises Britain and Canada for forcing the US to "blink" on Greenhouse gas committments at Montreal.

I would think that Martin's open criticism was well timed and placed and does more food for the future than Bush could even dream of as a legacy.

Friendship be damned when it was about the most serious issue facing mankind. It would have been contemptible for Martin not to speak out. His speech has forced the US to agree to do something about climate change.

[Biblio Bibuli]

But for this clown Wilkins to act like he overheard us spreading rumours about the U.S..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But we ARE spreading rumors. Martin is spreading rumors that we are doing something about climate change, while the American's are not.

Said Mr. Wilkins:

"The United States is, in fact, reducing emissions and spending more money on tackling climate change than any other country in the world, having spent over 20 billion dollars in the last five years. I would respectfully submit to you that when it comes to a 'global conscience,' the United States is walking the walk."

Soooo, did WE spend over 2 billion dollars in the last five years?

Is it true that we are spewing 24% more shit into the atmospere then we did at the time of signing onto Koyoto while the US only increased by 12%?

I'm ashamed.

[Argus]

You know, when I realized that Martin was doing the age old "make up an external enemy to rally the people behind you" routine I just laughed. What kind of idiots would fall for that, I wondered.

Martin bad-mouths the Americans on Kyoto, even though they're doing more than we are, then the Liberals call every reporter they can find to tell them how our ambassador was "called in" by the Americans, and now Martin has wrapped himself in the flag as the brave defendor of all that's good and kind and noble about Canada.

And, it appears, more than a few fools have bought it hook, line and sinker.

[PocketRocket]

This line killed me......

What if that friend demanded respect but offered little in return?" Wilkins asked.

....especially in light of Cellucci earlier saying......

Cellucci and other American officials said the US would launch missiles into Canadian airspace anyway. Cellucci went so far as to say that Canada had given up its sovereignty by refusing to participate in the US military programs."

.....I mean let's talk hypocrisy.

They get upset whenever a high-ranking Canadian offical criticizes any of their policies, even when those policies are in flagrant violation of their own agreements, and yet have the gall to say that WE'RE not playing nice because we have harsh words for their behaviour.

But I guess they have that right seeing as how we've "given up our sovereignty" by declining participation in the BMD program.

IMHO, we are offering the USA all the respect they've earned from us, and a hell of a lot more respect than they afford Canada.

[PocketRocket]

Along with (or in spite of, you choose) my previous post, I have to agree with ARGUS to some extent.

Wilkins played into PMPM's hands perfectly by uttering his retort to PMPM's statements.

By countering Wilkins' little tirade, PMPM has given the impression that he's willing to stand and fight it out toe to toe with the great big bad USA.

This gives him the "David vs Goliath" image that has always played well to the public.

As an aside, I was momentarily impressed when Harper said that Wilkins was "out of line" with his statements, but quickly un-impressed when Harper immediately followed that comment with yet another cheap shot at PMPM, when he could easily have said THE SAME THING using better-chosen words, and come out smelling like roses.

[sharkman]

You know, when I realized that Martin was doing the age old "make up an external enemy to rally the people behind you" routine I just laughed. What kind of idiots would fall for that, I wondered.

Martin bad-mouths the Americans on Kyoto, even though they're doing more than we are, then the Liberals call every reporter they can find to tell them how our ambassador was "called in" by the Americans, and now Martin has wrapped himself in the flag as the brave defendor of all that's good and kind and noble about Canada.

And, it appears, more than a few fools have bought it  hook, line and sinker.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you hit the nail on the head. And the media played it up, it wouldn't have been effective had they not. I have not heard Martin answer a question about his kyoto remarks in relation to the Americans when they are outperforming us.

This thread is obviously just another designed for anti-american sentiment. Because no one seems to recall all of the U.S. bashing that's been going on in the Liberal camp the last few years, some can only recall the American's response and express outrage that the U.S. Ambas. would dare to criticize us.

[Guest eureka]

The Americans are not doing better than Canada with respect to Koto. The differnce in the emission growth in recent years is more related to the greater difficulty Canada will have in reducing emissions That is, in part, because of sources like the oil sands and the necessities of transportation.

However, Canada is developing plans to deal with its problems while the US is not. And that is what counts. We will make the effort to meet our obligation to posterity.

The less dramatic increase in American emissions does not reflect well on the Washington administration. It is entirely due to the efforts of a few states and individual corporations and still shows substantial increase that cannot be mitigated without national effort.

[sharkman]

Then you may need to come up with facts and links to support your claim eureka, because the Canada - 13% U.S. 24% reduction is rock solid proof. And the oilsands only recently became part of the equation when oil rose above the break even point for oil production.

The U.S. has a very distasteful envronmentalist movement that recently was able to remove wording in a bill in congress that allowed drilling in Alaska. California has ridiculously tough emission laws for cars and because of tough laws in the U.S., a new gas refinery hasn't been constructed in the U.S. in over 20 years while consumption has grown. When you say that the U.S. isn't doing as much or planning as much as Canada, I wish you were right.

[Leafless]

Alberta contributes 25% of Canada's pollution with Ontario in second place at 21%.

Ontario ranks third as NORTH AMERICA'S worst air polluter.

The worst being- North Carolna with 700 facilities producing 50,066,939 Kg. total air releases.

The second is -Ohio with 1443 facilities producing 45,889,914 Kg. total air releases.

The third is Ontario with 1014 facilities producing 45,480,256 Kg. toal air releases.

Not bad for a small country like Canada.

The biggest and dirtiest polluters in Canada is Nanticoke electrical generating plant in Ontario, Inco, Bowater Pulp and Paper in Thunder Bay and Bayer Inc. in Sarnia Ont.

[sharkman]

Leafless, do you have any links to go along with your numbers?

[Guest eureka]

I believe that Leafless's figures are correst and I have seen reports on these.

I do not have to come up with figures or links, Sharkman. It is known to everyone that Canada is committed to the Kyoto accord and will have to act. It is also known to everyone that the Washington administration has refused to act.

[sharkman]

And it is also known that the U.S., while not commited to kyoto as Canada is, has outperformed Canada. To the topic at large, I think the U.S. ambas. was wasting his breath to criticize Martin, I think the U.S. should instead start getting serious about reducing our trading status with them if the liberals get in again, since it seems that Canadians in general hate the U.S. and only want to take their money. The U.S. doesn't need 'friends' like that.

[speaker]

sharkman

" I think the U.S. should instead start getting serious about reducing our trading status with them if the liberals get in again, since it seems that Canadians in general hate the U.S. and only want to take their money. The U.S. doesn't need 'friends' like that."

Lord, do you think there is a possibility? Naaah American corporations and to a lesser extent Americans are getting an incredible deal by having a neighbour and trading partner that is so rich it can afford to give the Americans cheap natural resources. what we will have to watch out for is American agression when our resources get to the point where we are going to keep them home.

we should be instituting mandatory service in an armed auxilliary, guerrilla classes in our schools, and dispersed combat readiness from Dawson City to Truro.

[sharkman]

I hope that you don't think, deep down inside, sneaking across the border to blow some stuff up to prove whatever your point is would be justified. Canada doesn't need terrorists. Btw, are your guns registered?

[HistoryBuff44]

It would seem that the players on both sides of the border are trying to be the victim and shooting back comments in attempts to reflect that stance.

Martin sure has tried to play this up though, acting like david trying to fight off Goliath. If through the democratic process Canada determines it is being unlawfully hurt by US action as set forth the by rules of NAFTA, if my understanding is correct NAFTA rulings are supposed to carry the weight of law in North America, then it take appropriate action. Martin talking the talk and not walking the walk speaks more to electioneering than an actual resolution to the issue.

The US reducing their trade status with Canada would not be in their best interests just as Martin losing his cool would not be in ours, its a mutually beneficial situation we have. True right now canada is looking pretty good, commodity prices are high and the jobs sector is booming, but that hasnt always been the case.

Its Important to remember that part of Martins plan is to do what is necessary to keep the headlines away from the scandal.

[August1991]

Naaah American corporations and to a lesser extent Americans are getting an incredible deal by having a neighbour and trading partner that is so rich it can afford to give the Americans cheap natural resources.    what we will have to watch out for is American agression when our resources get to the point where we are going to keep them home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean we should keep at home cheap natural resources, like for example softwood lumber - and refuse to sell them to Americans?

[sarcasm]I have a simple solution to this softwood lumber dispute. We should boycott the Americans! Let's refuse Americans access to our softwood lumber! The Americans have been getting a free ride for too long. They've been buying our lumber for almost nothing, and carting it away without paying us its true value. This American exploitation of our natural forests has to stop. Sombody has to stand up to these rapacious Americans.[/sarcasm]

It never fails to amaze me how some Canadians accuse the Americans of being unfair because they won't buy our lumber but then, in the same breath, accuse the Americans of being unfair because they want our water.

In the same vein, I'm surprised how our own PM is willing to share a rostrum (nostrum?) with an ex-US president and then a day or so later, tells an American ambassador that he has no business getting involved in a Canadian election.

Or how about blaming the US government for being plunderers of the environment when in fact its record in controlling CO2 emissions is much better than our own government?

[Leafless]

speaker- You wrote- " Americans are getting an incredible deal by having a neighbour and trading partner that is so rich it can afford to give Americans cheap natural resources."

Our economy is kept in check by CHEAP Chinese imports and CHEAP U.S. food products.

Our CHEAP natural resources is ensuring our economy stays entact which as always been pretty well the same concerning Canada-U.S. trade relations.

CHEAP is a key word concerning Canada's prosperity.

[canuckcat]

A New York Times editorialpraises Britain and Canada for forcing the US to "blink" on Greenhouse gas committments at Montreal.

I would think that Martin's open criticism was well timed and placed and does more food for the future than Bush could even dream of as a legacy.

Friendship be damned when it was about the most serious issue facing mankind. It would have been contemptible for Martin not to speak out. His speech has forced the US to agree to do something about climate change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said...

As well, the US is reducing tarrifs on softwood lumber (no refunds yet)...

this also because Paul Martin has been so forcefull...

(you have to howl at the US to get their attention, it would seem...)

In their defense, they are a big country... like a drugged elephant... but they never forget... There is no 'they'... there is only a process...

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill

I really like the US... and US folks... it's my second favourite country but their gov't sucks the big one...

[speaker]

I hope that you don't think, deep down inside, sneaking across the border to blow some stuff up to prove whatever your point is would be justified.  Canada doesn't need terrorists.  Btw, are your guns registered?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you mean as in like at the point of a gun?

I don't have a gun, I'm waiting for the federal government to seize on this initiative and get the ball rolling.

[PocketRocket]

Oh boy, I just responded to a similar comment in another thread, so I can just copy-paste part of that post.

Efficiency, gotta love it

......it seems that Canadians in general hate the U.S. and only want to take their money.

You CAN love a country, and still not like that same country's government.

Much the way you feel about Canada, it seems.

The U.S. doesn't need 'friends' like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean friends like this......(PMPM following Hurricane Katrina)

"On behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I offer our sincere condolences to the American people. During this most difficult time, Canada stands with you, and we are ready to provide whatever support you may require in the days, weeks and months ahead."

In fact, the USA was so upset by this unfriendly comment, and the actions which followed, that their ambassador Wilkins responded in a most outraged fashion, saying.....

"Four years after the devastating terror attacks of September 11, 2001, my country finds itself once again hurting deeply. And today - just as it did four years ago - Canada has come to our aid early and eagerly."

Someone that comes to your aid, when you're in need, "eagerly and early".

Sounds like the best kind of friend to me.