On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:10:03 -0500, Jean-Louis Couturier wrote:
>I actually think that Chr�tien has gone with his principles on this issue. He
>wants to have an actual 'international community' and believes the UN is the
>closest thing to getting one.
You are probably right. As inconsistent as his comments have been, he has
always stated support for the UN. I don't disagree with this, but it is a risk
when you are looking at pissing off your closest trading partner.
It does seem that we pissed them off, and frankly, I don't understand why. We have troops in Afghanistan sent there to relieve American troops need for Iraq. In the Persian Gulf, we have troops in Qatar as well as three ships escorting American ships. Even though we are officially staying out of the war, we are doing more than most countries who are a part of the Coalition.
What worries me is that Cellucci's speech was approved by Ms Rice. If actions speak louder than words, there are some in the White House who aren't listening.
>>- Canadian soldiers have already died under American bombs in Afghanistan. >>Perhaps there is a little fear of troops working under US air cover in Iraq >>when they will just be providing a token presence anyway
>I don't think so. If this was a reason, we'd hear a lot more about it.
Just speculating here. I haven't heard Chretien strongly object to the US's
position. In fact this week, he defended their right to proceed with this war.
I have heard that the Canadian Navy is much more capable of integrating with US
forces than the army. This might explain the naval presence in the Gulf while
avoiding contributing ground forces. I can't read his mind but just staying out
of their way might be a consideration.
>>And speaking of public opinion. I am starting to wonder where this anti-war >>majority is in Canada. Most people I talk to and those I hear on talk radio >>consider it a necessary task and support the coalition forces.
>Of course, this depends on what channel you listen to. Let's just say that >if you were in Qu�bec, you'd have the opposite experience. Maybe you're in >Alberta?
Southern Ontario.
This weekend, I heard a report on the effects of Cellucci's speech in Windsor
and Detroit. I can imagine that since SO is a lot closer economically and
geographically to the US, people there would be more "on side" with the
Americans. I mean, even though we are technically close to the US, Platsburg
is nowhere near the importance of Detroit or Buffalo: it doesn't even have an NHL
franchise!
What's really interesting about Quebec's position is that for once, there is no
division based on language. The protest marches in Montreal had a large anglo
contingent.
>Jean-Louis >"Alberta, the other secessionist province"
Probably predictable after the Kyoto debates, but it seems that that came out of nowhere. Then again, I don't always manage to stay on top of current politics. Dean
It's been there for a while... During the death of the Meech Lake accords, there were reports all over the place describing how Canada would break up. in all of them, Alberta was the first to go after Quebec. That's 15 years ago.
We're in the middle of an election campaign, and the PQ is in the lead. No seperation on the horizon, though, just some really cool new programs for parents.
Jean-Louis Couturier
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
