|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-21 15:06:50
I worry that Chirac and Landry have shaped Canada's foreign policy more than the federal government.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-21 23:07:28
Why? Despite others trying to insinuate that we sided with France instead of the USA our long time ally. The truth, I sincerely trust and hope is: Canada made its own decision from geniune belief that the position of the majority of countries within the UN was correct. Iraq was complying with the weapons inspectors and that this peaceful solution should be followed until/or if Iraq balked and showed it was not cooperating. It just happens that this time France, Germany, China, and Russia took the same stance as we did and that the USA and Britain did not. I do not see it as siding with any other country but in how we as Canadians viewed the issue independent of others views.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-22 16:47:02
No, Chretien was bullied by Chirac into siding against the UK and USA. Chirac used Landry and the Quebec election against Canada. If Canada sided with the US, Landry could have told Quebecers that Canada did not represent Quebecers interests or values in foreign affairs and this would have stoked seperatism. Chirac used this as a lever against Chretien.
I think Canada should be independent of mind. But, our leadership has failed to overcome the mob mentality that has swept the country. The precise reason we don't rule by public opinion in a democracy is because we know how foggy our decision making becomes when we make it en-masse, on-the-fly.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-23 09:29:59
"No, Chretien was bullied by Chirac into siding against the UK and USA. Chirac used Landry and the Quebec election against Canada. If Canada sided with the US, Landry could have told Quebecers that Canada did not represent Quebecers interests or values in foreign affairs and this would have stoked seperatism. Chirac used this as a lever against Chretien. "
I don't know where you get your facts from, but they are completely absurd, France did not bully Chretien at all. Chretien did have a sensitive problem with the Quebec opinion and the election, that is true, but France is not related at all with this.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-24 13:28:29
Well, we can't prove it either way. But I am glad it got some reaction because:
1) It could be true.
but more importantly,
2) The pro-Saddam lobby in Canada has asserted a great many vile and vicious motives behind the coalition action. The Canadian government not only remained silent while these accusations were being thrown about, but encouraged them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-24 14:11:57
Yes, it could be true, but it could also be true that Bush wants the oil of Iraq, or its something personal between Bush-Saddam... We'll probably never know (regarding the oil part, though, we should have a strong indication, if the Iraqi oil is kept to the Iraqi people or not)...
There is a pro-Saddam movement in Canada?? If there is, it must not be significant - I am certainly not pro-Saddam, but neither am i pro-Bush, I'm against both, and from the opinions i've seen from ordinary Canadians, they are also against Saddam and Bush...
I think your emotions are leading your reasoning, which in my opinion, is a bad idea.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-23 15:11:47
Fallon; You do not seriously believe that Prime Minister Cretien would bow to France because of it's "influence" in Quebec. I really don't believe that France has much influence in Quebec; they are French Canadians; they are not from France. If our Prime Minister were to bow to outside influence; it would be with the USA, our largest trading partner and neighbour with many similar values. Canada has much more need to safe-guard our trade relations with the USA. A democracy is supposed to rule by respecting informed, logical public opinion. It is not supposed to work by voting in a government to do as they please; this does often happen but it is not how democracy is supposed to work. You may make your decisions "on the fly" but I and most others on this forum do our research and can document our statements. We try to make logical decisions not emotional.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-24 13:32:03
Fatmomma, in BC, I can understand that you don't see a link between France and Quebec. BUT:
France always keeps a tab on Quebec politics.
France and Quebec have special diplomatic relations (Quebec is a member of the Francophonie).
You seem to forget the catalyst that deGaulle's words were in Quebec - it sparked the separatist movement.
finally, Fatmomma, I have tried in other areas to point out how I believe you come to your opinions thoughtfully and with principles. But, no Canadian can tell me that you or any other person in the pro-Saddam lobby would extend the same courtesy to me. I am brain-washed by the US or have read the "right" website full of articles from the "right" journalists.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-24 14:51:00
"France always keeps a tab on Quebec politics. "
I am a Quebeccer and Francophone, and i know exactly what is happening in my province (even though I'm not living there for the moment), and i can tell you that your statement is absurd. Yes, France checks on Quebec politics, which is normal, but they don't interfere actively with us now (De Gaulle's phrases was spoken a long time ago..., and yes they did interfere before)
"France and Quebec have special diplomatic relations (Quebec is a member of the Francophonie). "
Yes, but does that mean Canada is being bullied??
"person in the pro-Saddam lobby would extend the same courtesy to me. I am brain-washed by the US or have read the "right" website full of articles from the "right" journalists. "
Nobody is right or wrong here (except if you believe me pro-Saddam!), its not black or white, but by reading your responses, you have not fully disclosed facts, while i have (and i think others)... and by lacking facts, its very difficult for me, at least, to understand your position... Some other people which seem to be closer to your opinion (even though not having a strong opinion as much as yours) did give plenty of facts - and even though i disagree with them, their facts and arguments were so logical, that there is nothing much to respond to!
I do respect your opinion, but you should not have distorted opinions of people who don't have the same opinion as you... I for one am not a peace activist, neither a pro-Saddam, nor a pro-Bush, i am not Anti-American, but i simply don't like unilateralist superpowers, be it the US or the ex-USSR...
You know, even though i did not live those times, i really prefered the old isolationist US... Maybe its a myth, but for me they seem to represent a silent superpower which did not interfere in world affairs unless they had too... Even though China is not a country known for its democracy, what i admire from them is their isolationist view - they don't bother anyone, and they don't want to be bothered... That is wise (even though my facts regarding China could be wrong - its only an impression)... And yes, there are human rights abuses in China, and i do condem them... I'm just talking about foreign policy...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-25 13:05:42
I am a Quebecer as well - but an Anglophone.
I know full well that France has more than an "innocent" interest in Quebec politics.
Where we agree is that it would be nice to return to isolationism. The US (and Canada) would benefit from extracting themselves from the terrible corruption that sweeps our world.
I did not read anything you wrote as pro-Saddam. But the protest movements that have driven Canadian foreign policy are the single greatest weapon Saddam has to defend his regime.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 04:56:36
Yes, its a weapon of Saddam, but if there were pro-war protests everywhere, we could say that its a great weapon of the US administration... I know its a bit shaky, since Saddam is a dictator and Bush is democratically elected... But still....
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-26 00:19:05
Jean Cretien is a Federal politician; interested in keeping Canada together. France cannot have anything to offer our Prime Minister. Its only influence would be to offer Quebec support and backing if they were to separate. I realize that you are correct in believeing France would like Quebec to separate so it could spread its influence there.
I would like to remind you that I am NOT Pro Saddam. I do believe he is an evil despicable excuse for a human being. I just believe it was a BIG mistake for the USA and Britain to insist on invading Iraq while the UN was getting cooperation from Saddam / Iraq. If there are WMD under Saddam's control; he would have balked shortly down the road. Then Canada and most other members of the Security Council; I am confident would back them. This is my understanding of the idea Canada was trying to promote. Then actionagainst Saddam would be justified. I was also very distressed to know that the USA/Britain were blatantly trying to win votes by offering money or weapons or by thinly veiled threats of economic repercussions; they were not trying to sway votes by making others understand their point of view.
I was also very disillussion by having reports of their proof of Iraq's possession of WMD being found to be fraudulent, old and copied from student's paper, or just lacking substance.
I must admit, I generally ignored politics; believing one democratic political party much like the other. I was shocked to wake up and see the World Trade Center crumbling. I spent that morning at work supporting a friend whose sister worked on the 50th floor. (fortunately, she got out with 2 min to get away.) My first thought was Saddam was guilty. Then the USA with full world support went after the taliban in Afghanistan. When the USA left that endeavor before meeting their objective and turned their attention so quickly to Iraq; I became suspicious that this was just a little too convenient time for the USA to settle old scores.
I believe and hope that Canada would be quickly at the side of either the USA or Britain if they were attacked; I just think it was unwise to rush into this war; it will only anger Muslims and Arabic countries and could bring more terrorist attacks to North America.
I am sorry if you feel I disrespect your beliefs. I am finding it very difficult these days with such heavy propaganda on both sides coming out;much of it insults our intelligence
and headlines that are very deceptive.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 14:56:49
I totally agree with you, I think the Guardian reporters also seem to agree, here is a rundown of some assertions:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,921649,00.html
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
