U.S. Has No Right to Invade Iraq, Canada Says
October 3, 2002 7:50 PM Subscribe
The whole world says we have no right to invade Iraq. Last I checked, the world included Canada.
The point is, this is not news. It will foster no further discussion beyond everything that has already been said in a dozen or more threads. In short, this is a newsfilter thread. Boycott it.
posted by yhbc at 7:59 PM on October 3, 2002
The point is, this is not news. It will foster no further discussion beyond everything that has already been said in a dozen or more threads. In short, this is a newsfilter thread. Boycott it.
posted by yhbc at 7:59 PM on October 3, 2002
who the f*&$ are these Canadians anyway?
Who the "f*&$" are you? So a country has 'voiced it's opinion'. What makes it any less important than anything you have to say.
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:59 PM on October 3, 2002
Who the "f*&$" are you? So a country has 'voiced it's opinion'. What makes it any less important than anything you have to say.
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:59 PM on October 3, 2002
Hmm. Succinctness trumps verbosity yet again, gsteff. It is always so.
posted by yhbc at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by yhbc at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2002
Please don't tell me international law.
You're right. What a load of crap.
{/idiocy}
posted by goethean at 8:03 PM on October 3, 2002
You're right. What a load of crap.
{/idiocy}
posted by goethean at 8:03 PM on October 3, 2002
Why does Canada's government have the right to tell the US what to do?
You're exactly right; Canada has no right to tell the US what to do. You're wrong, however, in implying that that's what they've done.
What they're saying is "the US should not attack Iraq". That's called an opinion.
posted by Hildago at 8:21 PM on October 3, 2002
You're exactly right; Canada has no right to tell the US what to do. You're wrong, however, in implying that that's what they've done.
What they're saying is "the US should not attack Iraq". That's called an opinion.
posted by Hildago at 8:21 PM on October 3, 2002
After we knock off Iraq we can add Canada to the Axis of Evil...it is smart to keep the number to three in order to recall WWII. I knew Canada ghetting overly wimpish when yesterday it was annlunced that they might loosen up or rid themselves of anti-pot laws! Another war they don;t believe in.
posted by Postroad at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by Postroad at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2002
All of this is not to say I'm in favor of an invasion but who the f*&$ are these Canadians anyway?
Imminent death of MetaFilter predicted.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2002
Imminent death of MetaFilter predicted.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2002
Postroad: chill on the drinking and posting, huh?
posted by eyeballkid at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by eyeballkid at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2002
Why does Canada's government have the right to tell the US what to do?
You're kidding, right? Where the hell were you when W was blathering about Arafat must go? The USA tells other countries what to do all the time. Perhaps you haven't noticed but that's one of the reasons so many non-Americans hate the USA.
posted by dobbs at 8:50 PM on October 3, 2002
You're kidding, right? Where the hell were you when W was blathering about Arafat must go? The USA tells other countries what to do all the time. Perhaps you haven't noticed but that's one of the reasons so many non-Americans hate the USA.
posted by dobbs at 8:50 PM on October 3, 2002
Please don't tell me international law.
All of this is not to say I'm in favor of an invasion but who the f*&$ are these Canadians anyway?
I hope that was intended as mindless banter, because you sir have done an excellent job of amusing us all with your idiocy.
Well done, well done.
posted by Aikido at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2002
All of this is not to say I'm in favor of an invasion but who the f*&$ are these Canadians anyway?
I hope that was intended as mindless banter, because you sir have done an excellent job of amusing us all with your idiocy.
Well done, well done.
posted by Aikido at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2002
Why does Canada's the US government have the right to tell the US Iraqis what to do? I thought that invading soveriegn countries was what the 'bad guys' do. And that the UN was established to form a community of nations. Maybe it time to get back to principles. And away from cowboy politics.
posted by michaelonfs at 9:00 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by michaelonfs at 9:00 PM on October 3, 2002
I was up in Nova Scotia and PEI during the summer, and I was greatly impressed by the almost empty beaches. I also noticed that I couldn't get a good cup of coffee ANYWHERE. The Canadians need good coffee. The US needs resort space. LET'S INVADE CANADA! - later on they will thank us for it, and their children will sing great songs in our honour.
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 PM on October 3, 2002
Gee, I thought Canada was just another state. You know, like Michigan.
posted by Durwood at 9:14 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by Durwood at 9:14 PM on October 3, 2002
On the same note, maybe Americans are so edgy and agressive because of all that coffee they drink?
posted by troutfishing at 9:15 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by troutfishing at 9:15 PM on October 3, 2002
Well... under the 'If You're Not With Us, You're Against Us' doctorine, Canada should be mobilizing its armed forces in preparation for a US invasion.
We're gunning for you, Winnipeg!
posted by nathan_teske at 9:20 PM on October 3, 2002
We're gunning for you, Winnipeg!
posted by nathan_teske at 9:20 PM on October 3, 2002
troutfishing: I would hunt you down and do something drastic enough to match your lack of appreciation for Tim Horton and his fine coffee, but like all other Canadians, I'm too busy celebrating the news.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:36 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:36 PM on October 3, 2002
And that the UN was established to form a community of nations. Maybe it time to get back to principles.
Yes ... like enforcing Resolution 687 - in which Saddam Hussain agreed to a large number of things (the vast majority of which he's ignored) in return for the withdrawal of UN troops after his attempt to invade his neighbor was beaten back.
It is time to get back to principles. Passing a resolution saying that Saddam should pay attention to the resolutions he's ignoring ... exactly how is that returning to "principles"? Graham is right when he says "People who want to attack Iraq say 'Well it's just Iraq, it's just all about Saddam Hussein'. It isn't just about Iraq, it isn't just about Saddam Hussein, it's about the world order we've constructed over the last 50 years."
That "world order", as developed by the UN, is fairly meaningless when dictators know that breaking Security Council resolutions will merely result in - other resolutions. I'm amazed that those who hold most strongly to the line that the US shouldn't do it alone - they should go through the UN - don't also understand that the only way anyone will ever pay attention to the UN is if it's resolutions are not broken with impunity. Saddam has a long track record ... he's not exactly a mystery any longer. He understands one thing: force.
He's mocked the UN resolutions for the last decade. He's considering paying attention now solely because there is a threat of the US going it alone.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:43 PM on October 3, 2002
Yes ... like enforcing Resolution 687 - in which Saddam Hussain agreed to a large number of things (the vast majority of which he's ignored) in return for the withdrawal of UN troops after his attempt to invade his neighbor was beaten back.
It is time to get back to principles. Passing a resolution saying that Saddam should pay attention to the resolutions he's ignoring ... exactly how is that returning to "principles"? Graham is right when he says "People who want to attack Iraq say 'Well it's just Iraq, it's just all about Saddam Hussein'. It isn't just about Iraq, it isn't just about Saddam Hussein, it's about the world order we've constructed over the last 50 years."
That "world order", as developed by the UN, is fairly meaningless when dictators know that breaking Security Council resolutions will merely result in - other resolutions. I'm amazed that those who hold most strongly to the line that the US shouldn't do it alone - they should go through the UN - don't also understand that the only way anyone will ever pay attention to the UN is if it's resolutions are not broken with impunity. Saddam has a long track record ... he's not exactly a mystery any longer. He understands one thing: force.
He's mocked the UN resolutions for the last decade. He's considering paying attention now solely because there is a threat of the US going it alone.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:43 PM on October 3, 2002
[off topic]
oissubke: this FPP is against the guidelines. see the above metatalk link.
and you people fall for a troll post?
[/off topic]
posted by MzB at 9:43 PM on October 3, 2002
oissubke: this FPP is against the guidelines. see the above metatalk link.
and you people fall for a troll post?
[/off topic]
posted by MzB at 9:43 PM on October 3, 2002
MeatFilter: We're gunning for you, Winnipeg!
posted by nathan_teske at 9:20 PM PST on October 3
*forwarded to dg at 9:55pm PST on October 3*
posted by dash_slot- at 9:54 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by nathan_teske at 9:20 PM PST on October 3
*forwarded to dg at 9:55pm PST on October 3*
posted by dash_slot- at 9:54 PM on October 3, 2002
and you people fall for a troll post?
Not fall for it, part of it.
posted by semmi at 9:59 PM on October 3, 2002
Not fall for it, part of it.
posted by semmi at 9:59 PM on October 3, 2002
On the topic of UN resolutions, how about Resolutions 242 and 338 which were unanimously approved by the Security Council and are fully binding and can be enforced by sanctions or military action. Should we be 'enforcing' these while we're at it?
posted by michaelonfs at 10:06 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by michaelonfs at 10:06 PM on October 3, 2002
I always have to award myself a long, long pause before going on to read any sentence that starts with the words "Canada says..."
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:35 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:35 PM on October 3, 2002
It would be interesting if Canada would stop dithering, join the EU and become a non-confrontational pseudo-socialist unstate like the rest of Europe. Then the next time Canada is invaded we can go in and save their asses like we did across the pond in the 40's.
Then their complaining really wont have any merit, like Germany's and Russia's doesnt now.
posted by shamelesselitist at 10:45 PM on October 3, 2002
Then their complaining really wont have any merit, like Germany's and Russia's doesnt now.
posted by shamelesselitist at 10:45 PM on October 3, 2002
michaelonfs:
That's a joke right? Having done a wee bit of study on Resolution 242 for a paper years go, I can tell you it isn't worth the parchment upon which it is written. It is a masterpiece of political speak and therefore never actually says what people think it does.
Not to prolong this thread, but whenever I see Resolution 242 mentioned, I have to chuckle...
posted by Plunge at 10:49 PM on October 3, 2002
That's a joke right? Having done a wee bit of study on Resolution 242 for a paper years go, I can tell you it isn't worth the parchment upon which it is written. It is a masterpiece of political speak and therefore never actually says what people think it does.
Not to prolong this thread, but whenever I see Resolution 242 mentioned, I have to chuckle...
posted by Plunge at 10:49 PM on October 3, 2002
Gack. That was a bit of awkward writing there. Sorry.
posted by Plunge at 10:49 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by Plunge at 10:49 PM on October 3, 2002
Sorry about the newsfilter post. Still learning the ropes.
posted by oissubke at 11:02 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by oissubke at 11:02 PM on October 3, 2002
Then the next time Canada is invaded we can go in and save their asses like we did across the pond in the 40's
OK, I know it's pointless to comment in this thread, but I just can't let this comment pass.
The *next* time Canada is invaded? The *last* time was 1812, and it was by Americans. You burned down parts of York (now Toronto), so we (with British help) burned down the White House, then everyone went home. If we can agree to do the same again, I'd have no problem with this.
As for invoking participation in WW2, can I just ask where was the US from Sept. '39 to Dec. '41, when Canadians were fighting to free Europe? Or between Aug. '14 and Apr. '17? I mean, it's good that you bothered to join both fights, but c'mon. Our world war experience is years longer than yours.
(and we already are "a non-confrontational pseudo-socialist unstate"... except we don't mind kicking some ass when it's desperately needed. You have been warned.)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:31 AM on October 4, 2002
OK, I know it's pointless to comment in this thread, but I just can't let this comment pass.
The *next* time Canada is invaded? The *last* time was 1812, and it was by Americans. You burned down parts of York (now Toronto), so we (with British help) burned down the White House, then everyone went home. If we can agree to do the same again, I'd have no problem with this.
As for invoking participation in WW2, can I just ask where was the US from Sept. '39 to Dec. '41, when Canadians were fighting to free Europe? Or between Aug. '14 and Apr. '17? I mean, it's good that you bothered to join both fights, but c'mon. Our world war experience is years longer than yours.
(and we already are "a non-confrontational pseudo-socialist unstate"... except we don't mind kicking some ass when it's desperately needed. You have been warned.)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:31 AM on October 4, 2002
...we can go in and save their asses like we did across the pond...
Ha, recent history suggests the Canadians have more to fear from the US Army as an ally.
posted by niceness at 4:50 AM on October 4, 2002
Ha, recent history suggests the Canadians have more to fear from the US Army as an ally.
posted by niceness at 4:50 AM on October 4, 2002
I was waiting for someone to mention the slight... delay... in entering WWII whenever the "we saved your asses in WWII" topic comes up... :-)
posted by Stuart_R at 6:18 AM on October 4, 2002
posted by Stuart_R at 6:18 AM on October 4, 2002
NewsFilter + Canada Bashing + IraqFilter
Thanks, oissbuke.
posted by matteo at 7:15 AM on October 4, 2002
Thanks, oissbuke.
posted by matteo at 7:15 AM on October 4, 2002
Ok, enough of the invade Canada talk. We Detroiters LIKE Canada as a seperate country -- just ask all the 19 year olds and old businessman types who go over to Windsor every day to legally drink, gamble, get prostitutes, and possibly soon smoke a bit too, all for really cheap prices. You want to get a state grumbling about secession again, you just TRY threatening to invade Canada. We NEED it. We live in Detroit for cripes sakes.
Windsor + U.S. Occupation = boring place that nobody goes.
posted by frallyth at 7:59 AM on October 4, 2002
Windsor + U.S. Occupation = boring place that nobody goes.
posted by frallyth at 7:59 AM on October 4, 2002
but who the f*&$ are these Canadians anyway?
Well, for one we're members of the international community who took in thousands of Americans on Sept 11 who weren't allowed to fly back home. We're also the US's largest trading partner, doing about a billion dollars a day in trade. We supply the eastern US with significant amounts of energy. We have friends and family members living on both sides of the border. Until Sept 11, when terrorists who did not enter from Canada hit the US, we didn't worry much about the border between us.
We also receive regular lectures from American representatives on how we are supposed to spend more on our army, and dare not think about legalizing marijuana. We are constantly belittled for free health care. But everyone can have an opinion, right?
Who are we? We're your neighbours, and good friends. Pardon us if we disagree from time to time. Pardon us if we choose to voice that disagreement. Pardon us if our ideas don't rubber stamp the ambitions of your little prince in his quest to build a legacy of ashes.
posted by holycola at 9:01 AM on October 4, 2002
Well, for one we're members of the international community who took in thousands of Americans on Sept 11 who weren't allowed to fly back home. We're also the US's largest trading partner, doing about a billion dollars a day in trade. We supply the eastern US with significant amounts of energy. We have friends and family members living on both sides of the border. Until Sept 11, when terrorists who did not enter from Canada hit the US, we didn't worry much about the border between us.
We also receive regular lectures from American representatives on how we are supposed to spend more on our army, and dare not think about legalizing marijuana. We are constantly belittled for free health care. But everyone can have an opinion, right?
Who are we? We're your neighbours, and good friends. Pardon us if we disagree from time to time. Pardon us if we choose to voice that disagreement. Pardon us if our ideas don't rubber stamp the ambitions of your little prince in his quest to build a legacy of ashes.
posted by holycola at 9:01 AM on October 4, 2002
A newsletter from the Ayn Rand Institute defending "Israel's moral right to exist" were confiscated by Canadian Customs officials to to determine whether they constitute hate propaganda.
posted by schlyer at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2002
posted by schlyer at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2002
can I just ask where was the US from Sept. '39 to Dec. '41, when Canadians were fighting to free Europe?
ummm Spain? and some americans went to canada to join up in the fight.
the U.S. remained neutral (ha-ha cough, lend-lease, cough) for the idiotic european wars we did not want to partake in.
remaining neutral, IMO, was to relieve british forces from the pacific, so the brits could concentrate on the atlantic and med. so we kinda covered the brits back until we got our military up to modern standards. declaring war after sept. 39 or even into 40 could have set the japanese upon the sea quicker. plus the china situation was tenuous at best.
The *next* time Canada is invaded? The *last* time was 1812, and it was by Americans.
geez, you guys were not even an independent nation then.
what about the rebellion of 1841?
(a gentle kick in the Koestler)
posted by clavdivs at 11:04 AM on October 4, 2002
ummm Spain? and some americans went to canada to join up in the fight.
the U.S. remained neutral (ha-ha cough, lend-lease, cough) for the idiotic european wars we did not want to partake in.
remaining neutral, IMO, was to relieve british forces from the pacific, so the brits could concentrate on the atlantic and med. so we kinda covered the brits back until we got our military up to modern standards. declaring war after sept. 39 or even into 40 could have set the japanese upon the sea quicker. plus the china situation was tenuous at best.
The *next* time Canada is invaded? The *last* time was 1812, and it was by Americans.
geez, you guys were not even an independent nation then.
what about the rebellion of 1841?
(a gentle kick in the Koestler)
posted by clavdivs at 11:04 AM on October 4, 2002
remaining neutral, IMO, was to relieve british forces from the pacific, so the brits could concentrate on the atlantic and med.
Oh come on clavdivs. The US remained neutral because participation was unpopular at home. You had to be dragged into it. Covered our backs? We were chucking saucepans at the Wehrmacht while you lot were jitterbugging and chewing gum. If Hitler hadn't had a soft spot for Britain he would have forced his advantage during Dunkirk and we would have been gone.
We'd had a whole generation of men wiped out not twenty years before and thought that there would never be another world war. We weren't mentally or materially prepared for it and only luck and Winston Churchill kept us going. Which is why Brits and Canadians get so riled by this 'we came over the pond and saved your asses' talk. We saved our own bloody arses thanks. We had to.
*Realises she's gone completely off topic, backs out of the thread*
posted by Summer at 12:16 PM on October 4, 2002
Oh come on clavdivs. The US remained neutral because participation was unpopular at home. You had to be dragged into it. Covered our backs? We were chucking saucepans at the Wehrmacht while you lot were jitterbugging and chewing gum. If Hitler hadn't had a soft spot for Britain he would have forced his advantage during Dunkirk and we would have been gone.
We'd had a whole generation of men wiped out not twenty years before and thought that there would never be another world war. We weren't mentally or materially prepared for it and only luck and Winston Churchill kept us going. Which is why Brits and Canadians get so riled by this 'we came over the pond and saved your asses' talk. We saved our own bloody arses thanks. We had to.
*Realises she's gone completely off topic, backs out of the thread*
posted by Summer at 12:16 PM on October 4, 2002
It's interesting how most US Metafilters are fighting over things like where was Canada in WW2 and who was "kicking the ass" out of who (in US terms defending the freedom) instead of really looking at why do Canadians, Germans, French protest the preparations for war against Iraq today, Somalia tomorrow and Columbia in 2 years and Germany in 10 years...
Why Canadians are calling for a stop ? Because it's an insane, self-destructive attitude US have !
The "best" response starts with "the next time Canada is invaded", how about first thinking for a second why we even have to talk about a nation invading another nation
In the last 40 years the USA did more invasions than any other country in this world and in the last invasion (see Afghanistan) they even bombed their fellow Canadians, maybe that would be a good start to see why Canadians are saying enough of war, violence and hatred in this world, lets try to build relationships on something else than just plain bombing each other back to stone age
posted by bureaustyle at 12:32 PM on October 4, 2002
Why Canadians are calling for a stop ? Because it's an insane, self-destructive attitude US have !
The "best" response starts with "the next time Canada is invaded", how about first thinking for a second why we even have to talk about a nation invading another nation
In the last 40 years the USA did more invasions than any other country in this world and in the last invasion (see Afghanistan) they even bombed their fellow Canadians, maybe that would be a good start to see why Canadians are saying enough of war, violence and hatred in this world, lets try to build relationships on something else than just plain bombing each other back to stone age
posted by bureaustyle at 12:32 PM on October 4, 2002
"lets try to build relationships on something else than just plain bombing each other back to stone age"
it is called business. we americans buy Canadian garbage. GM-Canada threatened a strike, the demands were met. The Canadian people have reimbursed the people of my state for a rail accident a few months back. I see Canadians everyday, on I-69, coming to the outlet malls.
these are a few examples off the top of my head. I love Canada and respect their anti-war stance. They fought bravely in W.W. II.
my heart sank when those Canadian solders died. But it is up to the respective parties to clear this matter up.
my uncle was strafed twice by the R.A.F, despite a make shift kriegie banner atop their 40&8 (boxcar) He understood and enjoyed a 50 year relationship with an R.A.F pilot. He was welcomed into the pilots home.
posted by clavdivs at 1:07 PM on October 4, 2002
it is called business. we americans buy Canadian garbage. GM-Canada threatened a strike, the demands were met. The Canadian people have reimbursed the people of my state for a rail accident a few months back. I see Canadians everyday, on I-69, coming to the outlet malls.
these are a few examples off the top of my head. I love Canada and respect their anti-war stance. They fought bravely in W.W. II.
my heart sank when those Canadian solders died. But it is up to the respective parties to clear this matter up.
my uncle was strafed twice by the R.A.F, despite a make shift kriegie banner atop their 40&8 (boxcar) He understood and enjoyed a 50 year relationship with an R.A.F pilot. He was welcomed into the pilots home.
posted by clavdivs at 1:07 PM on October 4, 2002
People, we have a troll-within-a-troll. Although WW2 history is interesting, actually responding seriously to someone making a "we saved your asses" crack seems a really bad idea.
posted by Wood at 1:33 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by Wood at 1:33 PM on October 4, 2002
Anyway, I'm American and against the war. On the other hand, I don't appreciate the spirit of the constant lecturing of the US. Am I crazy to wish that the rest of the world would actually take a stand? The constant blah blah blah is just annoying. I'm not asking for more war, but economic sanctions wouldn't result in the deaths of millions of American babies, so go for it. Sanction us!
I don't mean to sound traitorous, but I just think that some progress might come of the non-US west (Europe and Canada?) actually doing something. On the other hand, I really think our western allies are important and that we are important to them. I don't appreciate Bush fucking this up. I also don't think Europe et al should or can remain neutral in the "WoT", but again Bush and co are giving them more reason to try.
posted by Wood at 1:42 PM on October 4, 2002
I don't mean to sound traitorous, but I just think that some progress might come of the non-US west (Europe and Canada?) actually doing something. On the other hand, I really think our western allies are important and that we are important to them. I don't appreciate Bush fucking this up. I also don't think Europe et al should or can remain neutral in the "WoT", but again Bush and co are giving them more reason to try.
posted by Wood at 1:42 PM on October 4, 2002
"Oh come on clavdivs. The US remained neutral because participation was unpopular at home. You had to be dragged into it'
darn those Japanese for "dragging" us into it.
"We were chucking saucepans at the Wehrmacht while you lot were jitterbugging and chewing gum."
try a different song.hint-hint.
If Hitler hadn't had a soft spot for Britain he would have forced his advantage during Dunkirk and we would have been gone.
really, i thought it was Goerings boast that the luftwaffe will "handle" the EF. Rommel and others had a plan to use tanks and mobilzed infantry, which would most likely have succeded. (god i can't believe this shit) So Hilter had a soft spot?-yeah raining bombs on London was real soft.
Which is why Brits and Canadians get so riled by this 'we came over the pond and saved your asses' talk. i never said this. The British people did save thier own butts.
you tell me why we did not go to war in 39'-40'.
Churchhill: Your Majesty, the americans will not fight with us, they are to busy chewing gum and playing Duke Ellington records"
so, summer, you post some stuff about Dunkirk, most likely knowing that Goering was the issue, making me almost DEFEND Goering because of his military action. nice try.
forced his advantage during Dunkirk and we would have been gone.
would that be ALL of the U.K. gone?
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
and.I.really.mean.that.
posted by clavdivs at 1:54 PM on October 4, 2002
darn those Japanese for "dragging" us into it.
"We were chucking saucepans at the Wehrmacht while you lot were jitterbugging and chewing gum."
try a different song.hint-hint.
If Hitler hadn't had a soft spot for Britain he would have forced his advantage during Dunkirk and we would have been gone.
really, i thought it was Goerings boast that the luftwaffe will "handle" the EF. Rommel and others had a plan to use tanks and mobilzed infantry, which would most likely have succeded. (god i can't believe this shit) So Hilter had a soft spot?-yeah raining bombs on London was real soft.
Which is why Brits and Canadians get so riled by this 'we came over the pond and saved your asses' talk. i never said this. The British people did save thier own butts.
you tell me why we did not go to war in 39'-40'.
Churchhill: Your Majesty, the americans will not fight with us, they are to busy chewing gum and playing Duke Ellington records"
so, summer, you post some stuff about Dunkirk, most likely knowing that Goering was the issue, making me almost DEFEND Goering because of his military action. nice try.
forced his advantage during Dunkirk and we would have been gone.
would that be ALL of the U.K. gone?
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
and.I.really.mean.that.
posted by clavdivs at 1:54 PM on October 4, 2002
« Older | More Fan Labors of Love Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Why does Canada's government have the right to tell the US what to do? I mean, any more than the US has the right to take what actions (speech being an action) it deems appropriate and necessary?
Please don't tell me international law.
All of this is not to say I'm in favor of an invasion but who the f*&$ are these Canadians anyway?
posted by billsaysthis at 7:55 PM on October 3, 2002