The poll also shows the war has split Canadians along regional lines. Quebecers are the most likely to support the decision to keep troops out, while Albertans are the least likely to take the same stand. With just 40 per cent support for the government's decision, Alberta is the only province with a minority favouring the government's position. Ontario, which is evenly split at 50 per cent, is the next lowest. This explains DoyleG's stance.
And, I'm guessing, it explains yours. Correct? G**damn Freanch In any case, why is Alberta most in support of the US-UK action? Any insight on this?
It's a historical matter. Alberta has always been at the forefront of the World Wars and other military conflicts.
Those bells you hear ringing are ************************ detectors. Alberta has not been at the forefront of any of the world wars - nor have they been laggarts - and their affinity for the US stems from the Leduc oil strike in, oh what was it, 1949 I think. eastern Canadian (read Ontario and Quebec) financiers would not put much money into developing the Alberta Oil reserves. American's however, were quite willing and since that time Alberta has been 1) Conservative (wealth does that) and 2) far friendlier to US aspirations/policy etc.
I read that on Sunday in Ottawa there was a 4,000 person pro-war demonstration. The crowd was chanting USA-USA.
To a certain degree. If your best friend tells you that he's going to go gangbang a really really ugly chick and then live it up in her sweet apartment, would you go? I think it's kinda like that when Americans say they're dissapointed their "friend" didn't join them (when, let's get serious, the US doesn't really care about a Canadian contribution). The rate in Québec is higher because we don't feel as close to the US as the rest of Canada does, therefore we can criticize them at a higher degree. And for all those who like to make jokes about Québec and being French etc., I'd like to point out that among Canadian troops during the great wars, Québecers were overly represented (and still are in today's army) and were amongst the most "feared" divisions. PS: DoyleG would have you believe that most of Canada is for this war, when that is completely untrue.
The Quebecer keeps the blahs going non stop. Funny given the fact that Quebec never has accepted any responsibilities.
In fact they are the second most feared division from Canada. Right behind those guys from Newfoundland.
I can vouch that you are correct when you say most of Canada is anti-war. Just today, throngs of Americans and Canadians were shouting epithets across the Detroit-Windsor border. The Canadian side started getting rowdy and threw over some grenades. The Americans pulled the pins and threw them back.
Seriously speaking, those Newfies are fuçked up (in a tough way)... And just for DoyleG, who's becoming more and more delirious: Definition of a REAL Canadian: someone who has Canadian citizenship. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Freedom of opinion is a cherished right, but thanks anyways for trying.
I never expect you Quebecers to understand anything. You people don't even consider yourselves as Canadians. A real Canadian is one who knows it's history and understands how it got there. To understand why Canada is part of the free world and it's obligations to it. We are a capitalist nation, not socialist. We are a nation of warriors, not peacekeepers. WAKE UP TO F*****ING REALITY DANIEL!!!!!
Doyle, believe me when I say that Americans know your people are with us even if your Frog-o-phile government is not, and we appreciate the support. I'm sure you'll have no problems getting rid of that prick Chetrien in the next election. Would it be an oversimplification to say that French Canadians identify culturally and politically with France, and therefore mostly oppose the war because France opposes the war, whereas English-speaking Canadians identify culturally and politically with Britain and the US, and therefore mostly favor the war because those countries favor the war? Alex
It would be a vast oversimplification and seeing as DoyleG's obviously not prepared for a serious discussion, I'm out.
As long as the people in Ontario wake up and stop voting Liberal. Or NDP for that matter (ugh!). Quebec doesn't even care about France. They complain constantly that France isn't French enough.
My Granny's Sister-in-law was from Alberta (her sister died last Week ), yet I oppose this war. Maybee there is the link with oil . Anyway, this should be in the specialist 'War on Iraq' forum.
Historical correction Don't want to get caught in this mud slinging, but as a Yank I tought I'd point out Newfoundland didn't join Confederation (Canada) until 1949 and so their contribution to "Canada's" war efforts is debatable (although their contribution to the Allies efforts can not be denied). My primary problem with Canada's policy on this was that they did not define one. PM just dithered back and forth and finally let the UN decide. If Canada's policy was tht we would only go with UN approval, WHY was that not clearly articulated back in October when Jean the Cretin supposedly told W that in a meeting?
Re: Historical correction The references to the Newfoundlanders looked present tense to me. I don't think they were "historical". As for Chretien's "dithering", well given the closeness of our relationship with the US, I am sure it was done out of respect for the american position. The last thing the US needs when they are trying to articulate a position is a close friend, ally and largest trading partner publically taking a non compliant stand. Privately the american's were told. Publicly, we remained open to the possibility and did not undermine american efforts with nations sitting on the fence.