Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Third Eye wrote:

I question how much care because I have yet to see you offer a constructive idea or point out a problem beyond bitching about the Liberals, Third Eye. You don't even say what could have been done better, just that you don't like what is being done. You ignore that even Chretien stood to the right of center on many issues and what you are promoting is more of the same.

You consider anybody to the left of Little Stevie Harper to be a leftist and have expressed ideas that show a lack of understanding of Canada, its history, and the real issues facing it. You told me to get bent because I dare to question your narrow views and refuse to stay quiet about the far-right, and quite erroneous, views you hold. You originally showed up here calling yourself anti-left and looking for an argument, then seemed pissed off when you got one.

You now don't like members discussing the US in a thread called "My Thoughts on the US" in the "Canada/US" part of the site.

We can have some influence on the US, Third Eye. I don't want to disturb your delusions, but we cannot acheive that influence through military might and we cannot achieve it by meekly bending over every time Georgie wants a hand in an illegal war or decides that Canada should base its domestic laws and policies on the whims of an insane US president.

We have, in the past, influenced other nations through diplomacy and intelligence. We have led by example. We have put forth initiatives that others wanted to participate in because the initiatives were good ones.

More than that, this site has American visitors. Discussing the actions of their country with them could very well influence how they vote or give them the courage to speak out when talking with their countrymen. At the very least, having a few people actually think about issues beyond their immediate control makes Canada a better and stronger country.

   

My point was that if the war was not about oil, then why not go after another country that was a lot worse than Iraq? The US was losing oil every day before the war.

And why did Bush try so hard to stop the recount in the supreme court, when Gore was gaining on him? Answere seems obvious to me.

   

My computer's about to break so I've got to keep this relatively short. I'll try to get back online later regarding Rwanda and what not.

My point was that if the war was not about oil, then why not go after another country that was a lot worse than Iraq? The US was losing oil every day before the war.

Why Iraq? Because Sadaam was an easy enough justification for war; he played the role of the scary boogy-man. The US wanted to get a hold of a Middle East country to set up a pro-American government. They wouldn't have been able to justify it by taking out Jordan, Iran, or really anyone else.

And why did Bush try so hard to stop the recount in the supreme court, when Gore was gaining on him? Answere seems obvious to me.

Because he wanted to win. Why did Gore want to recount the same pile of ballots multiple times? Answer seems obvious to me.

It's the nature of elections. In something that highly contested, you can't expect one candidate to lie down and concede.

On the side note, those of you hoping to see Bush gone (me included) should see the story www.drudgereport.com 's running regarding Kerry. Massive possibility for implosion.

   

Geeze, when is somebody going to realise that it shouldn't matter if Kerry tossed a quick one into some intern on the bus? It's funny...the Republicans chased Bill Clinton on this issue for over eight years and still yell about it whenever you criticise Bush. I still can't figure out why. People's sex lives have nothing to do with politics.

What do you know about PNAC Uhmurrican?

   

As much as it pains me to say it, I feel for George Bush, to some degree.

As has been mentioned in this thread previously, the UN is a pretty lame duck. It's a lame duck, largely as a result of the behaviour of the permanent security council members including the US. None of them are blameless. But, it is what it is at this point.

So, we have no international organization that is able to stand up to "rogue states" (for lack of a better term). In North Korea, we have millions of people dying of starvation, but instead of feeding their citizens, the government is working on costly nuclear weapons technology and finding new ways to kill and torture them. In Zimbabwe, we have a leader who wins an election through intimidation and fraud and rules the country the same way. In Iran, we have another nation actively seeking nuclear technology while apparently supporting "fundamentalist" terrorists. And what can the UN do about any of this? Nothing.

So, as the world's only superpower, the US has realized that it has the biggest target on its back. From their perspective, they probably see only two weapons in their arsenal to address those nations or organizations that they believe represent the greatest threat to them. One is economic. However, with Iraq and with North Korea and with Al-Queda, that hasn't been enough.

The other is their military might. Previous administrations used it is a threat. Place a carrier group nearby...shoot a few cruise missiles if necessary. This administration, for better or for worse (largely for worse, I believe) seems to think that the threat has not been enough. What's truly unfortunate is that I don't think they understood the consequences of their actions when they undertook them. They thought they needed to be the world's police, but have turned into the cop that believes that the ends justifies the means, rights of the accused be damned. And, they are realizing that it was easier to get into this mess than out of it.

Of course, in this post, I've only addressed the issues surrounding the Iraq conflict. I don't have any understanding or empathy for the choices that the US is making with regard to trade with Canada. Wheat, softwood lumber, using the border as a threat to influence Canadian marijauna policy, beef, etc. All issues for which it appears to me that the US is using trade to protect its interests without respecting the intent of existing agreements or the sovereignity of its neighbours.

   

Again, get bent. I have no time or patience for anyone who thinks that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I've said this about you before and I'll say it again - your arrogance and self-righteousness are intolerable. You lie and believe your own lies. There is no reasoning with someone such as yourself.

   

And by which example do you suppose Canada is fit to lead? Our weakness comes not only from our lack of military strength but by our lack of credible or effective public institutions in general.

Ghandi, as good as he may have been, was also a great fan of Hitlers. Not exactly something that looks good on a resume.

   

Ghandi {like MLK} was able to do what he did because he spoke for a large number of restless people who were near their breaking point and were ready to fight for what they believed in if necessary, his opposition knew that matters could only get a lot worse and that they relented for that reason and not because of the nonviolence approach per se.

To be credible you need a means of credibility and in Canada's case that means we need to have the kind strong of economic, political and military presence we had in the past and not rely on a reputation built generations ago or on the U.S. to get us a seat at the world table.

   

Rev_Blair,
Hell know's you're right regarding Republicans and the issue of sex lives. It's just infuriating to me that the best shot of getting Bush out of the White House has this nagging at him. If the alleged affair was true (which is a big "if"), it would be a stain of Kerry's character; however I'm willing to turn a blind eye to most things if it gets us a new president. Hope most Americans can do the same.

About PNAC, I really don't know much, asides from their nifty acronym. I have to question any organization that thinks NATO will have any role in the future, though. It's an organization that's long outlived its purpose and France, Germany, and others see it as an attempt by the US to meddle in their affairs. I mean, the fact that Turkey has joined and Russia has been considered for membership is absolutely damning.

Othello, great post. Even from an American perspective, it's infuriating to see my country threaten to set up what is more-or-less a blockade in order to coerce your government. What I find amusing, in regards to cattle, is that your government tests an astromically higher percent of cows for mad cow than mine. In all reality, the American consumer is going to suffer the same effects as a protectionary tariff as Canada gets absolutely shafted. God knows limiting foriegn trade does nothing to help the US economy, anyway.

On a side note:

Don't forget those gush-durn canucks broke our power system last summer...but let's try to forget that whole acid rain business...

   

First of all...piss off Third Eye. You don't want to talk about anything but how great the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party is. They aren't. They suck. It isn't that I'm so sure I'm right, it's that I've been watching your ilk for over twenty years and know that you aren't just wrong, but brutally and dangerously so.

Othello: I feel bad for Georgie sometimes too. It passes though, then I feel like spiking him up to the big tree in my backyard and setting the dogs on him.

Something that you have to remember is that George is creating and supporting a whole new generation of dictators, torturers, murderers and genocidal freaks in his quest to make his political benefactors and himself richer. The guy pissing me off in that group most of all right now is Karimov of Uzbekistan. He is basically Saddam Hussein. The reasons are the same, the actions are building to the same kind of crescendo, and the brutal truth is that unless something changes the next George Bush (my guess is that the twins will run as the first all female puppets) will be invading Uzbekistan.

Rosco: The way to do that is not to blindly follow the US because they might get mad. We aren't children. They need us as much as we need them. If we shut off the gas and electricity they'd be out of business. Who the hell cares if they get mad? It would be tough for a while, but we are quickly becoming the psychologically abused spouse. f you let that go on too long you know what happens? The abuse becomes physical.

If we want to lead by example we have several recent examples too. Chretien's comments after Cancun. The Landmine treaty. Kyoto. Stephen Lewis' AIDs campaign in Africa. The peace-keeping efforts that we are still capable of.

We do need to build up our military. We need to do it for reasons and goals that have diddly-squat to do with what the US wants though. Same with our economy...why the hell should we have to deal with the US on anything but even terms. It's our damned stuff and we can sell it elsewhere. We not only need to make those facts clear to the US, but flaunt them, loud and proud.

Uhmurrcan: Do some research into PNAC. Go to their web-site. They pretty much think that they have the right to take over the world for personal profit in any way they deem necessary. They couch it all in patriotic terms (jingoistic even) but when you read a little it becomes clear that it's all about money and corporations and rich people. They don't give a rat's ass about the American people or what's best for them. Pay close attention to who the members are. Those members are the people behind George Bush.

   

One thing you shouldn't forget though Rev, is, well... At least the US more or less admits to the genocidal freaks they create... Or, rather then "admitting to it" they're found out....

Anyway, what I mean is there are alot of other countries that are doing terrible things and are receiving no media attention. Unfortunatly though, it does seem it is the Bush Administration that likes to do this type of thing every other week.

   

Uhmurrcan - the entire report originated in The Drudge Report - now that's an outstanding example of Journalistic Excellence!
(or as I call it "the Drugged Report")

He (Matt Drudge) also stated that Clark slipped to a reporter that "Kerry is going to implode - and it involves an intern."


Maybe someone could explain this puzzle: IF Clark DID say that about Kerry - why would he then turn right around and jump on his Bandwagon? Does this make any sense to anyone? Would YOU???

Oh, and how "convenient" that the Mystery Lady that Drudge referred to is "out of the country" and cant be located.

Hmmmmm. *sniff, sniff* Did somebody bring some old fish in here?

And today, interviewed after being on Don Imus's show, Kerry made the statement "I categorically deny it - its just rumour - it's not true."

   

Rev_Blair, I'll read up on them. The fact that they dub their agenda "The Project for the New American Century" is a bit of a tip-off. Almost as blatant as the United North America site with the Flash intro where the maple leaf and the eagle/serpent crest fade harmlessly into the US flag.

Totally off topic, but what kind of atmosphere could an American studying in Canada (or anywhere else) expect? I want to get the hell out of my country for college, but with the... less than tactful... way my country's been conducting itself, I'd be worried about the torch-and-pitchfork reception.


Nonrev, since when did Matt Drudge's bulletins need any journalistic credebility? He can post whatever his little heart desires, but it will reverberate, and reverbate badly. That's why I'm more worried about the blurb on the site than any actual event. In any case, he's probably trying to recapture the magic of breaking the Lewinski scandal.

When there's a tip box (ANONYMITY GUARANTEED!) on the main page, it's pretty obvious sensationalism takes precedent.

   

The real problem is that Drudge's reports do reverbrate. When it comes down to it he is, more than any other person or press outlet, responsible for Georgie holding office today. That's a major deal....It shouldn't be, but it is.

An American studying in Canada could face some interesting prospects. I do try to talk to a lot of young people, but I am, in the end, pretty damned old. It also depends where you go, who you hang out with, and what you say. I know some people who'd try to string up Noam Chomsky because he's an American. I know quite a few who'd try to string me up for being too right-wing too...I have this odd habit of criticising pig-fuckers no matter who they vote for.

Those aren't the bright ones though and they can generally be bought off with a few shiny baubles and a quick grin. The ones that actually know what the hell is going on might give you some trouble though. If you are anti-Bush that's generally a plus. If you are fair that's even better. I really can see you having trouble only with a few. Buy the idiots some beer and only discuss serious things with real people and it shouldn't be a problem. You'll still meet resistance most likely...most Americans are way more conservative than they they think, it's cultural...and most Canadians, especially students...aren't nearly as world-weary as they would like believe.

Do check into PNAC whether you decide to come here or not. They are truly whacked and they are more or less in charge of things. I thought they were just another bunch of morons with money until I read who their membership was. This is a scary bunch.

   

[quote="Robair
How about leading by example? That is what I would like to see Canada do, as opposed to our neighbor. You think you need millitary might to be an infuence on the world? Look what Ghandi accomplished.[/quote]



There are too many people in this country who have forgotten, or have chosen to forget, that our status as a nation was gained by our ability to wage war. Diplomatic influence is in direct proportion to military strength.

"There are people who say we should forget the war and cut out these "crazy military parades" and put an end to such nonsense.. but I wonder how far it is wise for us to forget. Who made this nation? Who died? If these are things we must forget in the history of Canada, what are the things we should remember?"
Sir Arthur Currie, General during WW1, one of his last interviews, The Toronto Star 25 June 1988

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next