View Full Version : jean chretien:


Oblivious
09-12-2002, 07:58 PM
"And I do think the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily, you know, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied greedy and with no limits. And September 11 is an occasion for me to realize it even more."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/09/12/attack.canada.blame.reut/index.html

ZERO
09-12-2002, 09:56 PM
indeed.

pale_princess
09-12-2002, 10:18 PM
pm4life, eh jeanny-boy?

sleeper
09-13-2002, 08:45 AM
Now the alliance has "demanded an apology". its fucking ridiculous. they want to ignore the fact that what he said was true, because it "was offensive". paul martin all the way in the next election.

sleeper
09-13-2002, 08:52 AM
lol

"(His) comments -- particularly coming on the anniversary of September 11 -- blaming the victim are shameful. What was behind the events of September 11 are the forces of evil and hatred," said Stephen Harper.

what a dumbass

severin
09-13-2002, 09:07 AM
wow, so there actually are western politicians (who are governing), that have some brain and the guts to speak their thoughts....

Jean_Chretien
09-13-2002, 12:53 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by pale_princess:
pm4life, eh jeanny-boy?</font>

Oui. Voulez-vous coucher avec moi, ce soir?


And I tink I ned som good 'ead.

Jean_Chretien
09-13-2002, 12:54 PM
Who here swallows????

Jean_Chretien
09-13-2002, 12:55 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by severin:
wow, so there actually are western politicians (who are governing), that have some brain and the guts to speak their thoughts....</font>

non, I jus doen undersand dat wut I say mite 'urt odder people.

Jean_Chretien
09-13-2002, 12:55 PM
<font size=7>I am all o'er dis topic.

4 more years!!!!

Injektilo
09-13-2002, 01:10 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sleeper:
lol

"(His) comments -- particularly coming on the anniversary of September 11 -- blaming the victim are shameful. What was behind the events of September 11 are the forces of evil and hatred," said Stephen Harper.

what a dumbass

</font>

fucking right. I made the mistake of reading an editorial in the national post today, and it fucking pissed me off. It doesn't matter when he made those comments, it's fucking true and my respect for the PM just went up a notch or two because of it. And my respect for Joe Clark too, he actually agreed and didn't take the "bitch about anything the opposition says" route like Harper did. I like Joe Clark alot actually, if he weren't a PC I might someday vote for him. I think he should quit the PCs, and run for Premier of Ontario for the liberals next election. I'd probably vote for him then.

------------------
how'd this world get so fucking fun, all of a sudden?

Smiley33
09-13-2002, 01:21 PM
EVERYONE COME TO OTTAWA AND WE CAN EGG HIS MANSION! well, no. but we can deliver some poutine to his door and say hi. one time we were going by there by boat (his house overlooks the ottawa river) and I waved because I saw someone in the window and they waved back! was it YUO, meow?

Injektilo
09-13-2002, 01:27 PM
or you could wait till night time and then just let yourself into his house. The RCMP don't seem to mind that. You might bother his wife a bit though.

------------------
how'd this world get so fucking fun, all of a sudden?

sleeper
09-13-2002, 01:39 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Injektilo:
fucking right. I made the mistake of reading an editorial in the national post today, and it fucking pissed me off. It doesn't matter when he made those comments, it's fucking true and my respect for the PM just went up a notch or two because of it. And my respect for Joe Clark too, he actually agreed and didn't take the "bitch about anything the opposition says" route like Harper did. I like Joe Clark alot actually, if he weren't a PC I might someday vote for him. I think he should quit the PCs, and run for Premier of Ontario for the liberals next election. I'd probably vote for him then.

</font>

thats exactly what happened to me. which editorial did you read? i read all of them and they were all fucking stupid. that one big one on the left of the page made me want to barf. i even wrote in a letter thats never going to get printed this mornign right after reading it cause i was so pissed. i like paul martin more tho. hes a little iffy at times, but he supported the pms opinion and said something to the effect of "people have to understand there more than one way to view the world". something like that. id vote for martin if he heads up the party.



[This message has been edited by sleeper (edited 09-13-2002).]

sleeper
09-13-2002, 01:42 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Jean_Chretien
Who here swallows????</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Jean_Chretien:
non, I jus doen undersand dat wut I say mite 'urt odder people.</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Jean_Chretien:
<font size=7>I am all o'er dis topic.

4 more years!!!! </font>

haahahah absolute gold. this and that other thread you made about poutine ruined your "pantaloon" hahhaa

Samsa
09-13-2002, 01:47 PM
it was a pretty disrespectful thing to say on the anniversary of 9/11

oh. and just so i can get this straight: you people agree that the western nations are too rich in comparison to the rest of the world, yet you also think the us should mind its own business? i'll go somewhere else and think that over.

sleeper
09-13-2002, 02:09 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
it was a pretty disrespectful thing to say on the anniversary of 9/11

oh. and just so i can get this straight: you people agree that the western nations are too rich in comparison to the rest of the world, yet you also think the us should mind its own business? i'll go somewhere else and think that over.</font>

im partial on him talking about it on 9.11. i dont think its that disrespectful, but his point wouldve been heard a lot better when people werent all in that patriotic trance all over again.

the western nations are too rish compared to the rest of the world. which is a problem in itself, but he also mention the western nations getting richer and richer other nations have been getting poorer and poorer.
the US isnt minding its own buisness and should only get involved when asked. more times than not they get involved when they arent welcome. they meddle with other countries affairs domestic affairs way too much

Samsa
09-13-2002, 02:15 PM
but if the us isn't supposed to get involved exactly what are they supposed to do about being so rich in comparison to other poor countries?

Mirror_Untrue
09-13-2002, 02:16 PM
Wow i've been quite behind in the news and hadn't hear about that. Thats really awesome. Right on.

------------------
http://www.babylon.gr/artists/mozcats.jpg

Injektilo
09-13-2002, 02:29 PM
I think the problem is that what the PM said was actually pretty ambiguous, so its very easy for people to misinterpret him or twist his words. What I understand he said was that terrorism is more complicated than just "they hate our freedom". He said maybe social causes also have something to do with it, and that when people are desperate/feel hopeless, they do desperate things. Not that these particular hijackers were poor, cause they were well off actually, but if you wanna look at terrorist acts commited by the palistinians, I think hopelessness plays a pretty big part.

Also, he never mentioned the US, he said "western nations", which includes his own country and Europe.

Injektilo
09-13-2002, 02:32 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sleeper:
thats exactly what happened to me. which editorial did you read? i read all of them and they were all fucking stupid. that one big one on the left of the page made me want to barf. i even wrote in a letter thats never going to get printed this mornign right after reading it cause i was so pissed. i like paul martin more tho. hes a little iffy at times, but he supported the pms opinion and said something to the effect of "people have to understand there more than one way to view the world". something like that. id vote for martin if he heads up the party.

[This message has been edited by sleeper (edited 09-13-2002).]</font>

I read one in the TO Star actually, well, it wasn't really an editorial, just an opinion sorta article. I just sorta skimmed the one in the Post cause I had a pretty good idea what it would say.

Injektilo
09-13-2002, 02:38 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
it was a pretty disrespectful thing to say on the anniversary of 9/11

</font>


In his defence, he originally said that back in July, its just it was only aired as part of a special a few days ago. He knew it was gonna be aired on sept 11th though.

sawdust restaurants
09-13-2002, 02:48 PM
The U.S. does need to get involved. However, their philosophy of when and where and most importantly HOW to get involved is the change that can be made to bring about differences in the status quo.

sleeper
09-13-2002, 03:11 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
but if the us isn't supposed to get involved exactly what are they supposed to do about being so rich in comparison to other poor countries?</font>


we were talkin about the situations where the US get involved when they arent wanted, but this whole poverty issue is so complicated. its not only them, but all rich nations should put more emphasis on helping the poorer nations. canada for one, has nullified all debt owed to them from any poor nation.


[This message has been edited by sleeper (edited 09-13-2002).]

kypper
09-13-2002, 03:17 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
it was a pretty disrespectful thing to say on the anniversary of 9/11

oh. and just so i can get this straight: you people agree that the western nations are too rich in comparison to the rest of the world, yet you also think the us should mind its own business? i'll go somewhere else and think that over.</font>

predictable.
Stop polluting threads with your same old shit.

kypper
09-13-2002, 03:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sleeper:

we were talkin about the situations where the US get involved when they arent wanted, but this whole poverty issue is so complicated. its not only them, but all rich nations should put more emphasis on helping the poorer nations. canada for one, has nullified all debt owed to them from any poor nation.

</font>
And we're still giving.

ZERO
09-13-2002, 03:20 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
predictable.
Stop polluting threads with your same old shit.</font>

But there's no such thing as a happy-medium. It's on extreme or the other. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

Samsa
09-13-2002, 04:15 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
predictable.
Stop polluting threads with your same old shit.</font>

no, YOU stop polluting threads with YOUR shit. what, i'm not allowed to disagree with something someone says? how fucking interesting. i was being perfectly respectful. fuck YOU. shithead.

Samsa
09-13-2002, 04:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Injektilo:

Also, he never mentioned the US, he said "western nations", which includes his own country and Europe. </font>

i know. i'm not talking about what the pm said. i'm talking about you people's views on the issue. somehow the us is both supposed to help out the economic situation of the world yet it shouldn't stick its nose 'where it's not wanted'. so only the poor countries that like the us should be helped out? i don't know. it just strikes me as an inconsistent approach but maybe if you explained it better i may understand.

Samsa
09-13-2002, 04:20 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sleeper:

we were talkin about the situations where the US get involved when they arent wanted, but this whole poverty issue is so complicated. its not only them, but all rich nations should put more emphasis on helping the poorer nations. canada for one, has nullified all debt owed to them from any poor nation.


[This message has been edited by sleeper (edited 09-13-2002).]</font>

but i don't think the debt issue is so black and white. i'm not an economist but i have heard people say that you know, on one hand you have a country that is in so in debt it can never pay it back, and on the other hand if you nullify the debt the country..it's sort of like individuals and credit cards. they lose 'credit rating' or something which basically means no one will ever want to lend them money again. so i don't think you can decisively say third-world debt should or shouldn't be nullified. it's an important thing to think about but i am assuming no one here is like an expert economist or anything.

Samsa
09-13-2002, 04:22 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ZERO:
But there's no such thing as a happy-medium. It's on extreme or the other. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif</font>

your little sarcastic comment about MY views fits so perfectly with like every netphorian here. don't start on me. this is exactly why i'm criticizing you people.

sleeper
09-13-2002, 04:53 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
but i don't think the debt issue is so black and white. i'm not an economist but i have heard people say that you know, on one hand you have a country that is in so in debt it can never pay it back, and on the other hand if you nullify the debt the country..it's sort of like individuals and credit cards. they lose 'credit rating' or something which basically means no one will ever want to lend them money again. so i don't think you can decisively say third-world debt should or shouldn't be nullified. it's an important thing to think about but i am assuming no one here is like an expert economist or anything. </font>

yeah, nothing to do with any form of politics, especially foreign policy, is ever black and white. i dont know too much about all these issues with poverty and what not, but i just read recently some of the things canada was doing to help 3rd world nations. im trying to illustrate steps that should be taken, because regardless of what form they edn up being, help is needed and things cant be sustained the way they are now. there is so much unspeakable, horrendous stuff gojng on in places like africa and, god, east timor, that every wealthy country (US or otherwise) should be obligated to help in any way possible. it doesnt always have to be represented in the form of financial donations. this selfish everyman-for-himself attitude is going to be the end of us all. the US is the richest country in the world and they arent doing nearly enough. they use promises of peacekeeping missions and aid funds as almost blackmail in the UN, its disgusting.


[This message has been edited by sleeper (edited 09-13-2002).]

sleeper
09-14-2002, 11:38 PM
holy mother of fuck, did anyone hear the recent comments by steven harper? he comes on US tv and said all this ridiculously stupid shit as if he was speaking for all canadians. the anchor (foxnews) was like "whats up with canadians thinking we're responsible for this?". also, the UN is on its way to intantly approving the US's plans for war with iraq. has the whole world gone insane? i feel like forming a idiot free colony on some remote island

Orchestra
09-14-2002, 11:52 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
it was a pretty disrespectful thing to say on the anniversary of 9/11

oh. and just so i can get this straight: you people agree that the western nations are too rich in comparison to the rest of the world, yet you also think the us should mind its own business? i'll go somewhere else and think that over.</font>

He spoke the truth, and it wasn't disrespectful, it was a fact. and...
Opressing a religon and hogging the world resources are 2 different things.

Samsa
09-14-2002, 11:53 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Orchestra:
He spoke the truth, and it wasn't disrespectful, it was a fact. and...
Opressing a religon and hogging the world resources are 2 different things.</font>

you can say something that's true and still be disrespectful because of the context it's said in. but now that i know he said it earlier and it for some reason was aired on 9/11 i don't fucking know what to think anymore. and kindly stop using that thumbs down.

Samsa
09-14-2002, 11:55 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Orchestra:
He spoke the truth, and it wasn't disrespectful, it was a fact. and...
Opressing a religon and hogging the world resources are 2 different things.</font>

oh and exactly how are the western nations hogging the world resources?

Crippler
09-14-2002, 11:57 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
oh and exactly how are the western nations hogging the world resources? </font>

<font color="aquamarine">Name the (by a large margin) #1 consumer of the world's petroleum, please.

Samsa
09-14-2002, 11:59 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Crippler:
<font color="aquamarine">Name the (by a large margin) #1 consumer of the world's petroleum, please.</font>

</font>

but is that hogging or simply unnecessary consumption and polution? are we stopping anyone else from buying it? to my knowledge, no we aren't. we may not any one else to want it because then maybe prices would rise but i'm not even sure about plus...whatever.

ZERO
09-15-2002, 12:01 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
your little sarcastic comment about MY views fits so perfectly with like every netphorian here. don't start on me. this is exactly why i'm criticizing you people.</font>

who are you?

Crippler
09-15-2002, 12:01 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
</font>

but is that hogging or simply unnecessary consumption and polution? are we stopping anyone else from buying it? to my knowledge, no we aren't. we may not any one else to want it because then maybe prices would rise but i'm not even sure about plus...whatever.</font>

<font color="aquamarine">It's both. We unnecessarily hog it, and hopefully the west will have found other means of providing cheap energy when the world's petrolium runs out (which will happen a lot sooner than people seem to realize).

Samsa
09-15-2002, 12:03 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Crippler:
<font color="aquamarine">It's both. We unnecessarily hog it, and hopefully the west will have found other means of providing cheap energy when the world's petrolium runs out (which will happen a lot sooner than people seem to realize).</font>

</font> but how does our 'hogging' it make other countries poorer? and i don't know if i'd even say we hog it. just because we consume more..i am not sure it means that other people can't buy as much as they want.

DeviousJ
09-15-2002, 12:03 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Samsa:
</font>

but is that hogging or simply unnecessary consumption and polution? are we stopping anyone else from buying it? to my knowledge, no we aren't. we may not any one else to want it because then maybe prices would rise but i'm not even sure about plus...whatever.</font>

Look what happened when Iran tried to nationalize their oil supply

Samsa
09-15-2002, 12:04 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Look what happened when Iran tried to nationalize their oil supply</font>

what happened???

Samsa
09-15-2002, 12:14 AM
By the late 1940s, Iran had become a major supplier of oil, responsible for almost one tenth of the world's total production. At that time, the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company controlled the production and sale of Iranian oil, and the oilfield revenues reaped by the British far exceeded those of Iran. This virtual colonial system led to the election of Mohammad Mossadegh as Prime Minister in 1951, with the promise of nationalizing Iranian oil and eliminating British involvement in Iranian affairs. The election would also run counter to the United States' economic and political desires. If Mossadegh's nationalization proved successful, it would provide a model for other third world countries to throw out Western business interests. The United States also was aiming to expand their control over the world's oil reserves, and an economically independent nation within the region would disrupt this goal. By 1953, it was determined that Mossadegh was too dangerous to remain in power. The CIA sent Kermit Roosevelt and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (the father of Stormin' Norman) to Tehran with an unlimited budget for the task of arresting Mossadegh and returning the Shah Reza Pahlavi to power. This mission was accomplished, and Iran's oil was redistributed so that the Americans and the British each received forty percent of the revenues.

DeviousJ
09-15-2002, 12:17 AM
Yep, and that military coup deposed the first socialist and democratically-elected leader of the country in a long time. No wonder there's so much anti-US sentiment there http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif

Samsa
09-15-2002, 12:20 AM
well i don't know any sane person who doesn't hate oil. the world is going to be dead in 50 years because of it. ugh. i don't know which is worse. drilling in alaska or being involved with those evil oil-exporting countries.