Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on April 08, 2003, 11:15:10 AM
-
Arent my Country men fickle...
Honestly.Its hard not to support the US and British war effort watching it for the last few weeks.
If you took the french canadians out of the mix we would have the same support rating as the US I bet.
-
If CNN was reporting this they would say..."Only 72% of Canadians support the US ware effort"
Carry on
-
What were the polls prior to the war? Bandwagons are easy to jump on when the road is smoooth...
I was in the camp that "We should only go in with UN approval" but once we were in, I was 100% in support of the Commander in Chiefs' decision.
-
Originally posted by Drunky
If CNN was reporting this they would say..."Only 72% of Canadians support the US ware effort"
Carry on
This is exactly the little quips I was speaking of in regards to press politically favoring one side or the other,nods of the heads, raising of eyebrows to emphasis their "opinions", a play on words..etc.
-
About 72% against..
The UN thing was a big deal here.
-
UN sec gen , leaders of france,germany and russia are having a meeting, wonder what they are talking about?
-
hmmm... thrawn just told me it was 48 48... 4% undecided i suppose.
lazs
-
You had better gain an accurate assesement of the UN over the past 50 years before putting so much of your countries decision making proccess in jeapordy to maintain a completely broken international government.
The UN is like a real nice rental apartment that has been overrun by dopeheads, thieves amd murderers while the minority of decent folks looked the other way, bound and determined not to think too poorly of their new neighbors lest the scum conclude that the rich ones needed to get whacked.
Well.....guess what happened when you werent paying attention?
-
Yesterday, I read an interesting column in one of the Sun chain of newspapers that may help shed a little light on why the country that I help to finance is not officially supporting our traditional allies in what, in my opinion, is the right thing to do. My take on the editorial is as follows:
Q: Who owns the largest stake in Iraq's pre-war oil industry?
A: TotalFinaElf, head office in France.
Q: Whom are the directors of said company?
A: Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada, is one of them.
Q: Who is the single majority shareholder in TotalFinaElf?
A: Jean Chretien's son-in-law.
If anyone can support or refute this, I would like to know more. If true, then France and Quebec have been benefiting from repressive regimes for some time, and given Chirac's and Chretien's chummy relationship with Robert Mugabe, get a bad feeling when I think of what we may be associated with later.
Made me wonder, though.
-
Well put Yeager
I really wonder if they will ever be relavent again?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
.
If you took the french canadians out of the mix we would have the same support rating as the US I bet.
then you'd be called AMERICAN......dweeb
always pointing the finger at anything french EH!!! <70's show on> handsomehunk!!!! <70's show off>
-
Originally posted by bushdog
If true, then France and Quebec have been benefiting from repressive regimes for some time.
.
yo!!! no brainer...Chretien is the leader of CANADA not QUEBEC.....
WTF would Quebec profit from Chretien anyways...we gave em too you, he's yours to do as you see fit....but why did you put em as PM anyways....that I'll never understand :D
-
I stand firmly behind any ridicule or contempt I have shown towards French Canadians. I would rather be American then French any day.
-
Dude...that 70's show if cool!
Red is one hard asz mo fo and its hilarious.
-
Well, I asked anyone to support or refute the editorial, or even to find out if any others had read it, so is that true or not?
-
Bushdog, on top of that, there is more (at least regarding France and not Canada.)
The UN is very interested in the oil-for-food program. The UN gets 2.2% of the proceeds, to quote portions of an article:
"To cover its administrative costs, the U.N. collects a 2.2 percent commission on Iraqi oil sales, a setup that over the course of the program has generated more than $1 billion for U.N. coffers."
"Perhaps unsurprisingly, the U.N. has greatly expanded the Oil-for-Food program, in 1998 raising an initial ceiling on Saddam's oil sales, and in 1999 removing it entirely. With higher revenues (until interrupted by the war), the scope of imports has also expanded, subject to a distribution plan inside Iraq that the U.N. explains is "prepared by the Government of Iraq and approved by the Secretary-General."
"Beyond that, if you like Enron-style transparency, you have to love Oil-for-Food. At any given time, the program oversees billions in Iraq's money, awaiting the sludge-slow U.N. process of allocation and disbursement. For the first few years the U.N. parked the cash in a French bank, the Banque Nationale de Paris. More recently, it diversified the funds--currently totaling some $13 billion--among a handful of banks. But the U.N. provides no bank statements to the public, does not disclose the names of the banks, and won't even say what countries they're based in. Auditing is an in-house affair, conducted by government employees of a rotating trio of member states, chaired this year by France. "
-
87% of US pop now supports the war on IRAQ