# Enough America Bashing



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am so sick of elitists bashing our allies and neighbours to the south. I just spent a week camping in Alberta, and I met four American couples touring Canada. Each of them were fine, decent people and it is time someone stands up and tells it like it really is. Michael Coren said it better than I ever could: 

God bless America

Enough U.S. bashing, says Michael Coren -- for all of its faults, our great southern neighbour still deserves our heartfelt gratitude and support.

Shortly after the mass murder of September 11, 2001, I wrote a column about the United States. I said then that I'd never been a particular fan of many of the foreign and domestic policies of the U.S., and I have no reason to change my mind now.

But I have now written an updated version of that column because, frankly, I am sick of the smugness, the hypocrisy and the sheer hatred evinced by so many people towards the United States.

I've had enough of certain risible Canadians inflating themselves by claiming superiority over their southern neighbours.

I'm tired of the America-bashing from mediocrities the world over, and the blaming of every conceivable problem on Washington.

The last straw was, in itself, not particularly significant. It was when cyclist Lance Armstrong was spat at during the Tour de France. Spat at because he is an American. We do not know his politics, but his girlfriend, Sheryl Crow, is an opponent of George Bush. That didn't matter. The man was American and thus worthy of disdain.

So, almost three years later, I say it again: God bless America.

For leaving half a million men on the battlefields of Africa, Asia and Europe during the Second World War, a conflict the United States could easily have sat out. For effectively forcing Japan to declare war and thus joining the alliance of light against the gang of darkness. God bless America.

For that farm boy from Nebraska who had never even heard of Normandy or Sicily, who wanted so much to walk back from the hill but continued on, the bullets flying over and around him. For his not turning back. For his determination to do his duty and for his dedication to freedom. God bless America.

For being prepared to rip the country apart in a bloody spasm of civil war because, however delayed and reluctant in some quarters, the leaders and people knew that slavery was wrong. For seeing the future dawn when others could only see the enveloping night. God Bless America.

For Lincoln and Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Truman, Kennedy and Franklin, Jefferson and Adams. For Mark Twain and John Steinbeck, Henry James and Scott Fitzgerald, Melville and Whitman. God bless America.

For the legion of Nobel Prizes won with grace, for the medical breakthroughs celebrated with decorum, for the sporting records, the intellectual triumphs, the moral victories, the glory. For embracing "yes" rather than hiding behind "no." God bless America.

For the vibrant pastures and forests, for the mountains and valleys that startle, for the cities and the towns, the highways and back roads. God bless America.

For jazz and pluralism, baseball and religious tolerance, burgers and equality. For inventing and pursuing an ideal that, though not always achieved, is still glorious in the making and pristine in the chasing. God bless America.

For the billions in foreign aid, greater per capita than any other country in the world. For the food, clean water, medicine, machinery given to every continent on Earth. For the Marshall Plan and Marshall Dillon, for Tom Sawyer and Tom Hanks, for New York and for the New Deal. God bless America.

For inviting Irish, Jew, Italian, Pole, German, Hispanic, black, Asian, man and woman, all and every into the highest levels of government. For being the first nation in the world to treat the outsider as a guest rather than a problem. For being a melting pot rather than a melting society. God bless America.

For allowing God and prayer and faith to enter public life and for not running scared of gratitude to the Almighty for all that He has given us. For not lauding the religion of secularism whilst lambasting the religions of the church and synagogue. God bless America.

For being right more often than being wrong. For being the nation that still leads the way in so many ways, still lights the path on so many days. For being you. For being. God bless America. 

Cheers


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I have never posted any anti-American banter and I spent a great deal of time in the US...but this really leaves a strong Saccharine taste in my mouth, not to mention echos of Ethel Merman. SINC, thanks for the melodrama, I know you mean well.
I'm sure this'll lead to a looong thread.  

Cheers back at you, friend...


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

I'm with you kps. 

I would have preferred seeing a thread on whey God should bless Canada. There aren't enough of them. There are enough pro-americans.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

sinc,
why don't you visit and/or write/call the families of the Canadian soliders that were killed and wounded by a u.s. military bomb in afghanistan
a bomb dropped on PURPOSE against orders
note that the pilots were never tried for murder nor manslaughter
ask those families how they feel about your love of America
why don't you pull out that sunshine pen of yours and write an story about those brave men whose lives changed on night in afghanistan becuase of some ya hoo hell bent on revenge

Je me souviens !


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM, I attended those men's memorial services and wept along with their families. 

Using your theory, since Mark Lepine killed 14 women in Montreal one night on purpose, both you and I are like him.

So we therefore should be painted with the same brush because we too are Canadian?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nothing wrong with individual Americans and THEIR voices are often the loudest protesting their own governments misguided policies.

Bush didn't represent the majority of Americans when put in office by the thinnest of margins and under a cloud of controversy and he sure doesn't now.

His "base" is rich and elite, arrogant and ruthless and that's NOT the America that could be, should be and has been.

The sooner gone the better.  

Perhaps louder voices in the past would have prevented other slides into fascism. Glossing over what is perceived as a real threat to many around the world and within the US is as bad as Chamberlain stepping off that plane congratulating himself.  

Ask a French citizen if they would send the Statue of Liberty to the US these days....I know what the answer would be and so do you.

American foreign policy under this regime is destructive and wrong and the majority of Americans now, and by far and away the majority of the rest of the world, know that.

Hard won civil liberties in the US are under threat and those groups countering that deserve our respect and support. 

America now is NOT a model for any nation to emulate especially ours. It's a threat.
The further we distance ourselves, the more we develop multilateral ties and trade elsewhere, the better off and safer we will be.

I'm sure we all wish our southern neighbors well in their current struggle to correct a misguided and dangerous course of national policy both at home and abroad. They deserve different leadership.
No one in the world took issue after 9/11 - the US responded. We are talking about Iraq and threat to civil liberties.

It's incredibly dangerous and worth keeping front and centre. Poll after poll shows one man considered the most dangerous in the world.
G.W. BUSH ....with good reason.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I dont think personaly that most people are bashing the citizens of America. It is the corupt Government that people are tired of. I am really not sure that Kerry will do a better job, but I certinaly would vote him over Bush if I was a Yankee. My mom said somthing years ago that makes sense to me. America has helped out more countries then probalby anyone. if someone were to attack Canada I would bet anything that America would be the first country to help us. Of course like anything, there is allways hidden motives but I think even if they did not have a hidden motive they would help us. I am not a big fan of American policies and there Government but nothing is perfect unfourtunatly.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SYNC... I can relate to your sentiments. I know a lot of Americans that I like. There is a lot to love about America. The computer this web site is dedicated to being one. 

Unfortunately, "Brand America" is in need of some serious polishing. US does give a lot of foreign aid, but the US is like 22nd on the list in foreign aid when measured as a percentage in GDP.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There are brilliant contributions the US has made and still makes. A study of the Rockefeller foundation will blow you away at the impact it has had on world health.

The Hubble, the Space Station, PBS, the Marshall Plan, Lend Lease there is an enormous list of successes that benefitted the world as a whole.

But there is an underbelly of policy, the Contras. Cuba, minorities, health for it's own citizens, support of right wing regimes, meddling in soveriegn nations, ignoring of world pacts, unwillingness to join multi-lateral agencies as a full partner, treaty breaking- that is ALSO is a long list.
Much good is being crippled right now ( ask world family planning agencies ) and hard won admirable freedoms being rolled back.
That's what's up for bashing......and deservedly so.

The US, for it's own citizens sake and the world's sake needs a serious change of government. Here's hoping they get it.

[ August 14, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> SYNC... I can relate to your sentiments. I know a lot of Americans that I like. There is a lot to love about America. The computer this web site is dedicated to being one.
> 
> Unfortunately, "Brand America" is in need of some serious polishing.


Agreed, Mr. Mayor.

But why do we have to brand all Americans as bad? Brand their government. Brand Bush. But to disrespect a people and their country with the spelling "AmeriKa" is vile and wrong.

Criticize their policies that are wrong, but recognize the ones that are right. Average Americans are just like many of us on this board. Helpless to change a corrupt government.



> The further we distance ourselves, the more we develop multilateral ties and trade elsewhere, the better off and safer we will be.


Pure rubbish. If we are ever in trouble, it will be America and America alone who will assist us. No one else would dare even try. Certainly other ties should be developed, but not to make us safer. That is as misguided a statement as I have ever read.

To paraphrase Loafer: Safer - Schmafer.

Cheers


----------



## sputnik (Jan 6, 2003)

I've been speaking with Americans 5 days a week for 4 years now.
Take into account how many calls a day I take thats roughly 10000.
All I can say is they are no different than us. I've had people talk down to me because they discover I'm Canadian and I've had people PREFER to speak with the Montreal office and avoid our US counterpart.
All I feel for them is pity. If only they had a legitimate vote on who their President was we may like them a little more. They are just in bad situation, nothing more.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, re you comment that "Ask a French citizen if they would send the Statue of Liberty to the US these days....", you would also have to ask the American/British/Canadian soldiers if they would storm the beaches of Normandy once again.

Sinc, while I am not an advocate of "America, love it or leave it", as an American citizen, I appreciate your sentiments.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Pure rubbish. If we are ever in trouble, it will be America and America alone who will assist us. No one else would dare even try


"*No one else would dare try*?????/.......that makes no sense at all or it's a totally loaded comment with implications about our sovereignity from US influence.

Canada is well respected around the world and I would say many nations would help should we ever ask. We are involved and engaged members of many international multilateral organizations and should a severe catastrophe occur I'm very sure our "good standing" in the world would bring aid from many sources including the US.

And who pray tell would be "in trouble" from. There is only one credible threat to Canada.

Just because you don't perceive a fascist slide in the US doesn't mean millions of others don't, including many in the US itself. They don't like what their country is doing or turning into either.
Do you??
••••

Dr. G I think they would if the same sort of threat arose......but not perhaps so willingly.

The Statue was a symbol for loft purpose.........clouded vision right now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> And who pray tell would be "in trouble" from.


From a military or terrorist threat that we are currently ill prepared to defend ourselves against, that's what. 

What's left of our military is stretched to the limit in other countries.



> They don't like what their country is doing or turning into either.
> Do you??


Nope. But just because some Canadians don't like their policies doesn't give us the right to smear Americans and their country at will. I say give it a rest and see what they do in their upcoming elections in November. Face it, we can't do anything about it but gripe about it, and I have heard enough, thus the thread.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What military threat..... there is only one.
Terrorists????......look to root causes.

It's not required reading and if a K keeps the threat of fascism front and centre as something to truly be feared, well and good.

It's the internal stresses of too few haves and too many have nots, of South Side Chicago versus the North side, of 40 million citizens with no health care.

Of all consuming energy hunger and a refusal to join the nations in mulitlateral agreements.

That's where the threats lie.
Protest and action DOES make difference.
Ask the girl, the Canadian girl who achieved the Land Mine treaty.....which of course the US is not party to.

We make a difference, many US citizens look to Canada to as a fairer society and one more at peace with the world than their own. Many citizens, friends of mine looked to Canada as safe harbour from their own government.

If we are silent then those voices for change in the US don't hear the support for change from the rest of the planet.
Do you think Kerry referred for the need for "better relations with our allies" because those allies were "silent" and "letting it rest". 
When have you seen such a level of antagonism to the US? Perhaps only during Vietnam and look at the upheaval in the US that caused.

Would you tell them to "let it rest" as well....maybe you did.??

The US policies and actions are NOT making the world a "safer place" it's making the world a more dangerous place and damn well right I'm going to make noise about it.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *But why do we have to brand all Americans as bad?*


I really don't want to get in this debate, but where did this come from. I don't recall anybody ever stating that ALL Americans were bad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a baited statement to me. I've travelled in the USA and found most to be really nice people. It's not the average American that is the problem, it's the elite who run the country and set policies. There are too many very rich and influential people in the US that are medling in the affairs of the world for their own (or their company's) gain. Why do you think "America" is hated by so many poorer counties/societies? It's only when US citizens agree with and openly support these policies that they become "hated" as well. Time to change that image.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I could not have said it any better


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> The US policies and actions are NOT making the world a "safer place" it's making the world a more dangerous place and damn well right I'm going to make noise about it.


Go ahead, but I choose not to listen any longer. I'm tired of the same old, same old. 

And I don't share that opinion, nor do many other Canadians.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pardon me  ! - .......the old silent majority nonsense again....









OVER 80% OF CANADIANS VIEWED THE US WAR IN IRAQ AS WRONG AND SUPPORTED THE CANADIAN DECISION NOT TO PARTICIPATE.

Don't claim a majority you're not even close........the "few Canadians" you mention share YOUR views and indeed thankfully they are few indeed.  

You are entirely welcome to your opinion about the US and its current standing and actions in the world and to state your opinion and cheer the US on and applaud them all you like.

Just don't claim you represent the majority of Canadians - you don't period.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, re your comment that "The Statue was a symbol for loft purpose.........clouded vision right now", I strongly agree with both points, in that I assume you meant to write "a lofty purpose". Hopefully, a strong majority of Americans will vote in Nov. and bring Kerry to the presidency. We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> From a military or terrorist threat that we are currently ill prepared to defend ourselves against, that's what.


a dollar of foreign policy goes much further than a dollar of military

amerika's support of military huntas and fascists over the world for the sole sake of money is what makes enemies for amerika

canada is well respected on the world stage, except for those few years when brian baloney cozied up to that ex-actor president

the use of the term "amerika" has been discussed and if you still don't understand its usage, i don't have the time to go over it again

the u.s.'s love for the almightly dollar to the detriment of social policy is showing to be its undoing

the larger the gulf between the haves and have nots, the greater the chance for violence

Americans should understand that concetp. Their revolutionary war was fought over the same problem.

Governments HAVE to be the guiding light towards social safety nets and fiscal equalization.

Universal health care is and should be a right, regardless of ability to pay. That fundemental concept is lost on the neo cons and their fiscal agenda.

Money first, people a distant second is their motto.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Sinc, your comments remind me of another Sinclair. This is an editorial broadcast from Toronto in 1973 by Gordon Sinclair.

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.

None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by Tornadoes. nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?

If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about Germany technocaracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times- and safely home again.

You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag held high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

The more times change, the more they stay the same! Let's hope the citizens of the U.S. wake up and send Bush back to Crawford, Texas.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_I assume you meant to write "a lofty purpose_"








Idon right togood when I'm  

then I see michael's being fumble fingered too.  
preparing to be the next e.e.cummings and bugging sinc all at once.  

"With great power comes great responsibility"..... both for it's own citizens and the world, the latter part of that homily is missing for the current US leadership.

Better to come in November we hope, couldn't be much worse.
I do hope the New York convention remains peaceable........it won't be mild methinks.

••

Lotus that was the America that could be should be.........isn't.
Truman's America, FDR's America.

Right now they DO need the world's help with Iraq and it's being offered very reluctantly......with good reason.
They have burned many bridges since Sinclair wrote that piece and you can't ride on past glories forever while dissing the world community and it's institutions..as imperfect as they may be.

I'm sure Sinclair would be equally horrified at the situation in the US right now......and say so just as loudly..........*Friends, you're on the wrong course. We wish you well but please heed the world's concern.*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Let's make a deal, SINC:

I'll stop "bashing America" when America stops interfering illegally in the affairs of other nations.

This includes the invasion of Iraq.

It includes the covert funding to agents attempting the overthrow of Cuba's government.

It includes the overt funding (via the National Endowment for Democracy) to those forces attempting to force Venezuela's president from office.

And much, much more. When America starts acting like a citizen of the world, rather than a schoolyard bully that beats up little kids and steals their lunch money, on that day America will no longer be "bashed." 

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting.

 
M

_P.S.: American<u>s</u> are another issue. I bash the State, not the individual. I have my criticisms of U.S. culture, too, but only feel my criticisms are valid when discussing the exporting of that culture to other nations and the impact upon other societies (anybody see "The Gods Must be Crazy!"?). There are many Americans I admire... and those who are still living take as much issue with their country's foreign policy as do I._


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*OVER 80% OF CANADIANS VIEWED THE US WAR IN IRAQ AS WRONG AND SUPPORTED THE CANADIAN DECISION NOT TO PARTICIPATE.*

That's a pretty big statement, do you have something to back it up?

I know plenty of people, for example, who thought the war was a good idea but did not want Canada to participate (or did not think Canada should bow to pressure to participate, anyway).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's been published here in other discussions - suffice it so say Harper's and Sinc's "silent majority" doesn't exist

"By JEFF SALLOT 
the Globe and Mail
February 8, 2003

Ottawa --* Two-thirds of Canadians strongly oppose* a unilateral U.S. war to topple the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, a poll indicates.

and we are hardly alone



> In Italy, one recent poll showed that nearly 90 percent of those surveyed opposed war against Iraq and 95 percent were opposed to any Italian participation. In another poll, 97 percent of Germans were against German participation in the war. Nearly two-thirds of French people were also opposed to their country becoming involved in a military strike, even if it had U.N. support. More than 82 percent of Swiss were against a military attack against Iraq without a U.N. mandate, while 75 percent of four Norwegians were against any U.S.-led operation to oust Saddam


of course over time it shifted as the wrong headed approach emerged



> The figures are even starker - the numbers change dramatically - when UN support is taken away. Without the UN just 25 per cent would support an attack - 74 per cent are opposed.


http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/21/iraqpoll030221 



> Toronto, ONT – According to the latest Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail poll released today, three quarters of Canadians (74%, up 3 points from 71% in December 2003) believe that Canada made the right decision by not going to war with Iraq.


74% and climbing and then



> Poll finds Canadians want UN backing on Iraq
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> *Only 10 per cent of Canadians were in favour of military action by the United States and its allies against Iraq without the backing of the United Nations, a recent poll suggests.*


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1044218101637_226/ 

Let's see 100-10 that would be *90% of Canadians opposed to unilateral action in Iraq.*

Happy now









and America is waking up too



> * New Poll Finds Most Americans Feel US Should Have Stayed Out of Iraq *
> VOA News
> 17 Jul 2004, 15:50 UTC
> 
> ...


...........and that's good news.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I'll stop "bashing America" when America stops interfering illegally in the affairs of other nations.


Well put, Cuba Mark.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I've got little time for this debate except to say how sick I am of the term "multilaterialism."

If you want to feel warm and fuzzy about international cooperation and the great job the UN can do, don't watch any news coming out of Darfur, Sudan. That's your great international community sitting on its collective ass once more.

Hey but didn't you hear, the killings have slowed down.
(That's because the militias have run out of people to kill, women to rape, and villages to raze). 

But we had a UN security council something or other, that counts right?

Sure, it obvious soft power works....

So let's call a spade a spade. The people opposed to the war in Iraq really don't care what happens to it one way or another. Just like most don't care about Darfur. I haven't seen one mass protest, one demonstration, not one no blood for religious extremism protester out there. 

It's enough to make one sick.

(and I can't wait to hear some of the replies to that statement, so I'll preempt with a question, how many protests did you go to in the tens years the international community used sanctions and the corrupt oil for palaces program?).

Personally, I can't wait until a functioning healthy state that respects the rule of law, minority rites, and the democratic process emerges from Iraq. It's going to take time, money, patience, and yes blood on both sides. 

But it is worth it. 

It's not Vietnam. It's not imperialism. It's not an oil grab. (I know I'm going to hear lots over that statement.)

It's not pretty, but it's called nation-building. 

You know what, I'm not surprised that 80 per cent of Canadians don't like war. Not surprised in the least. I bet the same 80 per cent don't like many things, from war to buying genetically modified foods to the use of animals for medical research. 

I don't like war either. It's violent, destructive; innocent bystanders now die in far greater numbers then armed combatants. 

It's the disgusting failure of the human spirit. 

But my moral stance, like all the above mentioned morals, are admirable from many points of view. But these morals are the product of vast wealth and society that has grown quite comfortable. 

Perhaps too comfortable. 

There is no education like strife and suffering, no greater eye opener. 

I remain convinced that Iraq will end up far better off in the long run thanks to the U.S, the British, the Australians, the Poles, the Bulgarians, and the other countries who remember the importance of free nations. 

Do I think the U.S. has other motives besides democracy? 

Damn right. 

High on the list I'm sure is economic benefit from the expenses they incurred. Also high on the list I'm sure is creating a magnet for Islamic extremists to fight it out in Iraq. Sure beats fighting with them in New York. 

I've tried damn hard not to say anything on this topic because I didn't want to get flamed, but I couldn't hold back my thoughts anymore. 

I think I'll head back to the apolitical tech areas again now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Cheers


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

HaHaHa...Take a look at this...
http://www.teamamericamovie.com/ 

Washington apparently isn't amused.



> August/02/2004: White House Angry
> Yesterday on the drudge report, Team America made news by
> ticking off the white house. Apparently some senior officials
> think it's bad taste to make fun of the war on terror, hey, go figure.
> ...


Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

NB 
Gee another "White Man's Burden" supporter.
Too bad you missed your century. You would have been right behind Teddy charging up San Juan Hill I'm sure.

You call it "nation building" and not imperialism.  
You fail to mention the US support for Saddam AND Bin Laden in the first place.....when it was in the US interests to do so.

Perhaps consider why over half of Americans NOW think it was wrong and why senior leaders and diplomats both in the US, Britain and around the world consider the US policy dangerous and wrong headed. 
Sit down across from Wesley Clark and explain to the former head of Nato why multilateralism sucks.

Until the US policy leaders embrace the world as a community not their turf to exploit - the imperfect world bodies that we have will be hampered in being able to provide effective assistance to people's in distress from internal conflicts.
Sudan, Congo, Rwanda...the list is long.....ask Romeo D'Allard.

The US is unwilling to abide by it's own treaties and agreements even on the trade side.

I'd say stick to the tech areas and GI Joe stories or do some serious reading of world history.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> And I don't share that opinion, nor do many other Canadians.





> Don't claim a majority you're not even close........the "few Canadians" you mention share YOUR views and indeed thankfully they are few indeed.


"man·y     P   Pronunciation Key  (mn)
adj. more, (môr, mr) most (mst)
Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends."

It is a bit of a stretch to claim I mean a majority isn't it? Care to show me in the definition how I mean majority? I didn't.

By way of example, many Canadians voted NDP in the last election. But they didn't win a majority, did they?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's entirely specious Sinc.

"I don't share your opinion *nor do many Canadians".*

Break it down.

"I don't share your opinion"
Sinc doesn't share my opinion. Clear statement and correct

also he states *nor do many Canadians".*

Meaning *There are not many Canadians that do share MacDocs opinion. * Clear statement, very incorrect.

Since 60 to 80% of Canadians DO in fact share my opinion about the war in Iraq and US policy being dangerous. 

Under what possible mangled definition could you ever claim 60-80% of the country as ......."not many Canadians"









That dog don't hunt BIG TIME.

It's okay to be in the minority - minority opinions are important and critical to democracies and human interactions - 

Recognising a LARGE consensus when confronted with one is ALSO important.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

From Dr. G's posting in the Shangri-la Clubhouse, regarding Newfoundland fresh water...


> *various American companies want to create a pipeline to bring this pure fresh water to tankers and then off to bottling plants in the US. Under NAFTA, if this was ever done, there would be no way to stop other American companies from draining the province dry*


They do this all over the world and people wonder why the US is treated with such suspicion and distaste. Greed, power and money...out of control. Heard about the US ban on Canadian cattle, lumber disputes, import duties & tarrifs, etc..... Free Trade as it suits THEM.







 These are not the actions of the populace, it's big business and lobbies that control the politicians.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> It's not Vietnam. It's not imperialism. It's not an oil grab. (I know I'm going to hear lots over that statement.)
> 
> It's not pretty, but it's called nation-building.


How is it not imperialsim? The U.S. invaded on the pretext of Saddamn having WMD and that America needed to defend itself from this "threat."

With that sort of logic, Europe would be justified in invading Ameirca.

By the way WMD count = 0 (still)

1. they have WMD - the most in the world by far
2. they are the ONLY nation on Earth to have ever used nuclear weapons (aka WMD)
3. they have oppressed people and not so long ago supported slavery (see deep south and "white" neighbourhoods)
4. over 40 million of its citizens don't have health care
5. they had a fake election result based on puppets put into place by the father of the current president
6. major corp. dictate energy policy with secret meetings with the vice-president
7. thousands of black voters, in the state where the current president's brother is governor, were not allowed to vote due to a "computer glitch" and that state's votes would have defeated the current president
8. death by gunfire is more than 4 times what it is in other developed countries

Sounds like a country in need of "liberation."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

There are lots of polls that prove that Canada did not want to go to war in Iraq, my point was that not supporting the action/not wanting to participate is a very different thing from thinking the war was entirely wrong.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well if you think so, you are always welcome to draw conclusions.
I suspect that's NOT the stance of those polled or are you suggesting the "secret silent majority" theory as well.

The challenge was that "my opinions on Iraq and Bush are shared by *few* Canadians."

60, 70, 80 90%,... whatever caveats and dodges you try to present it's not FEW!







Patently wrong. 
Wouldn't even qualify for "few Americans" these days.......and that's a very very good thing.

•••••

I felt sorry for the American's today at the Olympics - first their gymnastics team gets a raw deal on rulings then the NBA team gets buried by Puerto Rico for the first loss since the NBA was admitted.
At least their big gun in the swimming hole is on track. 8 Golds in his sights  
Should be quite a showdown between Aussies and Yanks in the swim medals.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I never said it wasn't a few, I never said it was a majority, I merely point out that it is entirely possible to think the war was a good idea, but not want to participate, and that none of the polls I have seen can account for that.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

The corporate and political machine that is the USA draw its own good and bad attention to itself. We are just reacting to their policies and press. I don't think many of us are bashing the average citizen of the United States. (ehMac put it well in his post.)

Don't even get me started on the "God bless America" slogan. I have deep-rooted cynicism about that one and a president who would break-down the barrier between religion and state if he could. 

But I digress. 

The US has clear oil interests but they are not their only interest in invading Iraq (of course). The US has many flawed and unfortunate domestic and foreign policies; nevertheless, the US is still a much fairer and moral country than many.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

As I recall, Nostradamus talked about his third anti-christ being a "great king of terror" who "brings fire from the sky", and specifically says that he will be from Asia. A prince of Persia wearing a blue turban. 

This third anti-christ bringing fire from the sky is supposed to start a third world war.

Now, it's been a while since I've read any of this (or even seen "The Man Who Saw Tomorrow"), but last I checked there was a number of interpretations. Many think it's bin Laden, many think it is Saddam, and still some think it is Bush.

Unfortunately, and like almost any other prophetic writing or device, Nostradamus is just specific enough to give you a good idea what he was writing about, but just vague enough that you can interpret many things to be what he was writing about.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Sinc, first what an excellent written article. I share the spirit of your article. However don’t be fooled by the justification and vilification of the States by Canadians… It’s a Canadian thing, as a nation we seem more intent on criticizing other countries actions
( in this case the U.S) rather than dealing with our own issues at home which are onerous. 


We live in a country that has one of the higher tax rates in the world. We elect a government that has recently come out of a financial/corruption scandal. Ontarians elect a premier that just plain lies. The healthcare systems are falling apart. Our armed services are an embarrassment. We live in one of the only countries in the world where the Radio & TV stations content is government controlled and licenses can be revoked for expressing one’s opinions. Despite being a country with vast natural resources, we have energy issues. If we had elected the right people over the years we would not be so worried about the Middle East’s effect on our oil supply right now. I think that perhaps we should look inward as our country is far from perfect. 


Look around at any Canadian on-line forums and the political discussions are more U.S. specific than Canadian. The current discussions are all about the election and Iraq with vast amounts of posts about comparing which crooks will make the best President are almost humorous and a constant rehashing of the same old stuff. Many of those that participate seem to be surprised that the U.S is acting like imperialists, what’s the surprise ? Britain, Spain and the Romans were all the same. 


Personally I hate (and I use that word sparingly) the “tarring with one brush ”of any group of people. I do see your point that the constant America bashing is annoying and unjust.I don’t know whether it’s jealousy or a severe inferiority complex, the arguments are mainly irrelevant.. it’s just a Canadian cultural thing… or too much CNN


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

I personally don't dislike any individual American per se, but I am not fond of their current administration and I will not be entering the United States of America for a long time. Perhaps in a few years if my wife really wants to see Las Vegas or the Grand Canyon or if our children really want to go to Disneyland.

Go Canada Go!

James


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Going by Nostrodamis's clock...
We have one more hurdle to jump over before we get world peace.


I seem to remember reading somewhere in one of his books
about the men in red that would divide up the birth place of
mankind, Iraq?...Could be...Sounds about right...Babylon...Hmmm...

Dave


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I'm bored..so let's rumble with Stinand's post!  

_We live in a country that has one of the higher tax rates in the world._

So, what's the problem? It's only a problem if we are wasting it more than anyone else. You have to look at what that tax rate buys us.

_We elect a government that has recently come out of a financial/corruption scandal. _

Given...but we're not unique in that sense.

_ Ontarians elect a premier that just plain lies. _

Given...but, again, we're not unique in that sense.

_The healthcare systems are falling apart._

Not really...at least we have a healthcare system that everyone can access. I don't have to worry if I have enough insurance to pay for treatment.

_Our armed services are an embarrassment._

True, but then we're not feared are we? Fear and hate go hand in hand it seems...

_We live in one of the only countries in the world where the Radio & TV stations content is government controlled and licenses can be revoked for expressing one’s opinions. _

Have to be careful there...I can't think of a country where a government cannot censor or close down a media outlet.
BTW, did you know that Murdoch's radio stations are told what they can air?

_Despite being a country with vast natural resources, we have energy issues._

What energy issues? The only problem is making sure that we don't make a mistake in choosing which energy option to go with and how to transport that energy to market. I told me g/f this morning that I'm glad that electricity rates in Ontario are going UP! Maybe it will make people stop and think about how wasteful they are.

_If we had elected the right people over the years we would not be so worried about the Middle East’s effect on our oil supply right now._

The right people? Who? The idiot Conservatives who want our armed forces to have a helicopter carrier? Hahahaha

_I think that perhaps we should look inward as our country is far from perfect. _

Not perfect but pretty close.  

_Many of those that participate seem to be surprised that the U.S is acting like imperialists, what’s the surprise ?_

Not surprise but disappointed with a nation that puts on a pedestal notions such as freedom, justice and liberty.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *America bashing is annoying and unjust*


Any kind of bashing can get annoying. Your post borders on Canadian bashing as well, by the way. I don't think anyone here is bashing Americans, but rather the American political/Superpower/self-appointed world cop (when it suits there interests)/multi-national company power thirst/greed driven/leave in shambles foreign interference policies. Get rid of the wealthy (greedy)"people manipulators" and the Americans are down right nice people. Travel around the world and people will greet you cautiously if they mistake you as American. Tell them that you're Canadian and things get instantly more friendly. Why do you think that is? Wht do students travel with a Canadian flag on their backpack?...because they'll be better received. We may not be perfect, but we don't go around rattling everybody's chain. Diplomacy vs military might. Make friends, not war.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I am Canadian. I love Americans and America. I respect there accomplishments and am in awe of their economy and get the job done attitude. I am thankful every day they are our neighbours and every second Friday when I get paid. Anyone who thinks we would exist as an economy without them is kidding themselves.

That being said, and for the very same reason, I am very concerned about our friends to the south. The willingness to be manipulated freely by media and government concern me. Their foreign policy concerns me. Their social disparity concerns me.

What does not concern me is their ability to fix the issues when they finally recognize it. They are a "can do" country.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

IronMac Rumble away …. 

All of your points are well taken. So I'll dance at your rumble.


My original point was about this preoccupation with the American scene whilst we have problems here at home that seem to go undiscussed. When Canadian political topics are posted they lack the fervor of the “American” discussions. If people spent as much time researching material about Canada and then discussing it… Perhaps it would institute some change and help us improve our situation in Canada.

As far as wasting our taxes, you are happy as long as we; as a country don’t waste any more than other countries … Sorry I think that our government wasting our money is wrong , and we should hold the politicians accountable. The Gun registry is a fine example.

The radio and TV comment comes from the fact that all radio and TV are mandated to broadcast a percentage of Canadian content ( about 35%). To the best of my knowledge we are one of the only democratic countries that has such a restrictive mandate. Murdoch owns the stations so he has the right to control content.

The recent Fillion/CHOI-FM incident that involved the non renewal of the station’s license because 92 people complained is, ridiculous. This incident certainly explains our bland radio and TV. 

The energy situation is another issue of bad management, in other countries incentives are in place to encourage people to save electricity. What have we seen in these terms since last summers blackout?? McQuinty’s solution ??? Shut down the fossil fuel plants, which is a complete absurdity until other sources are developed… 

Meanwhile the Athabasca Tar sands are turning into a cost efficient way to supply crude so what do we do ? Get the Americans to buy into the project… Perfect.

The American’s may have promised freedom justice and liberty but these words were written by a collection of white rich slave owners …so not much has changed except peoples “disappointment”.

Peter 

It’s the “wealthy (greedy)"people manipulators” that have built the U.S.A.. Take them away and you have a bankrupt country ..Not much of an alternative!!!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> It’s the “wealthy (greedy)"people manipulators” that have built the U.S.A.. Take them away and you have a *bankrupt country* ..Not much of an alternative!!!


how much more in debt can America be ?
oh and by the way no healthcare for 40 million citizens


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Bashing America is as Canadian as bashing Canada. Someone said that, can't remember who but it was funny at the time.

I'm not sure I would ever want to 'follow' anyone on an invasion of another country when they have commited no act of war or hostility against us. Remember it's not a war, it's an invasion followed by an illegal occupation. Like it or not what the US is doing violates International Law as it stands. I think everyone would agree that Saddam is never going to win a Nobel Prize for anything but that fact remains the US is so far over the line it's not funny, never was. 

I'm certainly not going to get into any political discussion on a computer forum but there are a great number of Americans that need to wake up and see that if they don't get Bush and company out of there and tell Israel to knock off the BS there's gonna be some bad things a happening. And we all know which way the breeze blows over the Lakes.

And that is my one and only political post on the ehmac forum.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *And that is my one and only political post on the ehmac forum. *


Oh, don't stop at one post. There's lots of good fishing to be had around here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Right Peter, just don't take the wrong "bait"!

Cheers


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Oh! What type of lure is that? Oh wait it's nothing more than a plain old hook with a raison on it. 

You'll need better bait than that.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macspectrum

This is exactly what I’m talking about lets bash America even if our facts our wrong. The actual figures according to the Census in 2001 are 41.2 million who did not have healthcare insurance. That does not mean that they do not get health care, Medicaid and Medicare take of many off these. There are others who choose not to subscribe to an insurance plan. In fact at any one time in the States up to 71 million are without insurance for a myriad of reasons. 

As for how much more can they get in debt? Guess it depends who wins the presidential election. Bush wins, I think you may see the debt run even higher. Kerry wins who knows? His past fiscal record when he was in the senate is not exactly sparkling…

I think that you may find the figure interesting in this article it’s not very encouraging for the global economy.

Bloomberg


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

OOOOOOOOh, I see there's some late night fish jumping around. Here fishy fishy! Got a nice wormy for you!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Gretchen it's a pleasure to hear from you. It'd be a shame not to hear from you again. But I understand your apprehension to jump into a politcal debate (if it can so be called) on a computer forum.

Accusing Canadians of criticizing Americans as a hobby is as blatant a generalization as other erroneous blanket statements people are cooking up here. Gee, let's prove our point my making a sweeping generatlization. Oh look credibility just flew out the window. (Oh yes and I am likely guilty of this too so I do not exempt myself from this foolish rhetoric.)

Let's consider the US media for a moment. American TV dominates our airwaves. If you turn on your TV, it's hard to miss American content and broadcasting so it's no wonder we get cynical and opinionated about the corporate entity that is "America." Any country that appoints itself as such a media and political figurehead is bound to receive more attention and criticism.

As for Canadians needing to focus on our own country, there's two comments I have about that. First much of our trade and politics is tied in with our southern neighbours. Second the U.S. too has many internal problems they should address but instead they prefer playing G.I. Joe in other people's back yards.

OK that last comment was meant to be inflammatory; however, the U.S. as the self-appointed leader of the Free World -- *sigh* -- is an outward looking hyprocrite. They're by no means alone in this but they seem to like to draw attention to themselves more than any other.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah CC - thank you for the segue.
A Peter right on diplomacy, trade, aid and respect go a long way.

We aren't the only ones that reject insidious US cultural values ( aside from the Frnech which is another story entirely )



> China's schools give Canadian English top marks
> 
> *Fear of U.S. cultural invasion leads to texts from Canada in second-language classes*
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040816/CHINA16//?query=china

I seem to recall someone mouthing off about Canada and Canadian values being irrelevant in the larger world a while back. We are more admired than perhaps we give ourselves credit for.

Personally I'm quite happy for this kind of cultural respect from the next emerging empire.
*I'd far prefer a China as world power with values similar to Canada than values similar to the US. Full Stop, period. *


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Medicaid and Medicare take of *many* off these.


that magical word; "many"
it can mean 10 or it can mean 10 million

let's read below;


> One in eight Americans lacks access to basic healthcare, with minorities and low-income families hardest hit, according to a state-by-state report.
> 
> The National Association of Community Health Centers said although the current healthcare debate focuses on the 43 million uninsured Americans, not enough attention is devoted to the *36 million who are "medically unserved" -- those without healthcare. *
> 
> ...


http://www.applesforhealth.com/HealthyFeatures/malbh5.html

and some more;


> Washington, D.C. - A new study this week reports that a record-high *82 million Americans were without health insurance at some point over the past two years*, and that most of those Americans were without coverage for at least nine months. The report, by the non-partisan group Families USA, goes on to say that African Americans have been disproportionately affected, as a whopping *43% of all African Americans have gone without insurance.*


http://www.democrats.org/healthcare/news/200406180002.html


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

My wife and I were considering moving to the States. She is a nurse. Nurses do well there. She learned a lot about there health care and we decided not go. She told me it was really bad there. I kept insisting that it is only bad if you dont have money or a good job. That is the truth. I would never move to the States because I oppose a Government that does not care about people and there health. This counrty is much better but we may be heading the same way if we let certian people in power in the coming years. Now my wife is trying to get it into Med school and just wrote the entry exam on saturday







A lot of doctors go to the States too. We will not go there if she becomes a doctor. We have decided to go where it is needed most up North. I also work in health care and it will work out great for us. Many people in the health care field move to the States for the money. The Government needs to start paying Doctors and Nurses and health care people more or it may be a crisis like the States.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macspectrum my point being that once again you are more interested in the healthcare of a foreign country rather than your own. The American healthcare system is flawed no doubt. Any system that relies on wealth for healthcare is wrong. 

Your original statement was that 41 million had no healthcare which is not true that would be the figured for the uninsured.

31% of low income Americans say their healthcare was fair or poor. The shocking statistic is that 23% of the same demographic in Canada say the same thing.

In an unjust private healthcare system I can understand that the 31% , it’s sad but inevitable. But what excuse do we have for having a figure that is only 8% less in a publicly funded system. It would appear to me that our system should provide a quality healthcare for all, apparently it doesn’t. Don’t you find that of more concern?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macspectrum my point being that once again you are more interested in the healthcare of a foreign country rather than your own. The American healthcare system is flawed no doubt. Any system that relies on wealth for healthcare is wrong. 

Your original statement was that 41 million had no healthcare which is not true that would be the figured for the uninsured.

31% of low income Americans say their healthcare was fair or poor. The shocking statistic is that 23% of the same demographic in Canada say the same thing.
Survey 
In an unjust private healthcare system I can understand that the 31% , it’s sad but inevitable. But what excuse do we have for having a figure that is only 8% less in a publicly funded system. It would appear to me that our system should provide a quality healthcare for all, apparently it doesn’t. Don’t you find that of more concern


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seeing double again Andy - must be the Corona. 
I'd get your glasses checked

That article you reference was HEALTH not HEALTHCARE 



> “Just under one-third (31 per cent) of low-income Americans reported that their *health* was fair or poor, compared with 23 per cent of low-income Canadians,” Statistics Canada and the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday.
> 
> ........Among uninsured Americans, however, 40 per cent reported that their needs were not being met..........


You are allowed to blush, in fact we'd quite enjoy it


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

oops opps opps.
Color me red. 

Macspectrum now you can publicly flog me for committing the very crime I accused you of. 
Spectrum’s Choice 

This is what happens when you post, while editing a boring video. I think I should go and check the video to see if I’m using the right client’s clips. I don’t think WalMart would be quite as understanding if I use OPG personnel in their video..

Stinand departs stage left


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent article in the Globe today.....dimming of the shiny Eagle indeed

By an American about America.



> *Worlds apart on the vision thing*
> 
> Canadians are in the midst of a transatlantic debate: the American Dream of individual fulfilment versus the European Dream of community, writes JEREMY RIFKIN
> 
> ...


The OTHER emerging empire I'd prefer Canada be aligned with.

Will Americans listen to Rifkin's voice ever???..........one hopes so.....and soon.


----------



## GrapeApe (Aug 4, 2004)

There is nothing wrong with Americans.

It's the U.S. government that is the problem.

Yes they are elected by the people but it's not like Americans have any real choice.

The U.S. governments hypocrisy and unilateralism around the world is what makes people hate them. At the same time I'm not going to pass that hate on to every American I meet because they may not have voted for the governement or even voted at all.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> There is nothing wrong with Americans.


there is only something wrong with about 1-2% of americans

it is *America* and it's downward spiral into *Amerika* (read: foreign and domestic policies) that worries most


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Most people dont vote. Most poor people dont vote. Most poor people are uneducated. Try living the American dream if you were raised in the projects in LA. My utter most respect goes out to the ones who make it as very few do. There are lots of variables to "making it" such as health, finacial back ground (College in Canada and the States is very expensive), inteligence, if getting a job and providing food for your family is more important there goes getting your MBA. Many of the people who are in Government and have made it had parents with money to get them into the top school's etc (most of them had wealthy famlies now a days). Some people do well on thier own and yes anyone has acsess but it is harder for some people due to enviromental factors. This "American Dream" thing is a lod of crap. You also got to have a little luck on your side. Most buisness fail and some of the people are very, very smart. Good article though.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

I'm a dual citizen, and have lived in the US and Canada about equally during my life. I grew up in Canada but received a degree in the US, worked in the US, and now live and work in Canada primarily but with frequent trips to the US. So I feel like I know something about both countries.

In my opinion the US is a very damaged country. The people have become so wildly polarized both politically and economically that I just can't see it continuing along as a stable economic force. The "Me first and screw everybody else" isn't just an idea, it's ingrained moral at this point. The much-touted "sense of personal responsibility" is dead; now it's, "I'm more important than anybody, and I'll sue everybody to prove it." Add on some looming problems with race/poverty issues and I think the US is really headed down. Maybe slowly, maybe quickly, but when a country starts incarcerating such a large percentage of its population you know something is going to change and maybe change violently. Right now the US is stretched like a drum head economically; if everybody stopped trading oil in US$ I think the US would be bankrupt. If China stops buying US notes then US rates are going to soar at a time when the government and citizenry are savagely in debt. Wanna make a lot of money? Short the US$, a position that's made a lot of people rich in the last couple of years, and I don't think the run is over yet...

Oh, wait, we're talking about American bashing. I'm all for it if it helps keep Canada as seperate politically and economically from the US as it can be. I choose to live here because Canada is still, despite a bunch of right-wing neocon wankers, a far better country to live in than the US. I hope we start to emulate Norway (debt-free, huge cash reserves, similar sort of economy) far more than the US. When a minor politician called the US President a "Moron" I got mad; she should have used a much stronger and more accurate set of words, "Moron" just doesn't do him justice at all.

Go Canada!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc...you listening..?? Dual citizen, fellow Albertan.
One of the more succinct summaries I've come across. Well said.

•••••

Chavez being reconfirmed in Venezuala puts the US at further risk to oil shock and is a black eye for their "policies" there.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040817/ECHAVEZ17//?query=chavez

Havana must be pleased.

First the Soviet Empire....now the US is crumbling at the edges  Sad day for the planet......or maybe not.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macdoc.. 

Good article however I’m a little dubious of some of it’s claims with addition of the new members Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Having been to a fair number of these countries most have a pretty poor economy and a poor standard of living. These countries are surely going to change the economics of the “15 most developed E.U. countries“

My daughter lives in Hungary and is going to be returning to Canada as she is already feeling the negative economic impact (prices vs. Wages) of Hungary’s new position in Europe. Add to that the immense amount of money that the other countries are going to have to come up with to bring these countries up to standard and I can see some issues.

I see the fall of the US empire but I’m not convinced that the rise of the EU will be quite so rosy as many suggest.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The "Me first and screw everybody else" isn't just an idea, it's ingrained moral at this point.


very sucSINCt (ok, a little poetic licence)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.


i think these countries will serve as the cheap labour for the more modern EU countries

like Mexico is for the U.S.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think the "approach" and the nature of the "dream" is the key.

A commonality of purpose that I think funds Canada's sense of "all it's citizens" and Canada's approach to international issues.

Dreams may not always be realized but I'd say Europe's and Canada's versions perhaps may ultimately prevail in their "approach" at least and the US version flawed in a fundamental manner.

A fair and just society....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Sinc...you listening..?? Dual citizen, fellow Albertan.


Yep. 

There are disillusioned types living in every province now.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, I too am a dual citizen, having been born and raised in New York City, and coming to Canada to teach at Memorial University in July, 1977. So, I am half and half. Still, I think many have missed the point Sinc was trying to make. Bash the government that gets/keeps America into needless wars, be it the Johnson/Nixon/Bush Sr.&Jr. Bash corporations in the US that polute the environment, turn a blind eye to child labor in the hopes of a larger quarterly profit. Bash those Americans who deny others, based on race/religion/national origin/gender/lifestyle/etc., access to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I will be right up there "bashing" those who defile what is (or could be) good about America. But, as Sinc, I tire of the endless bashing of one and all in the US. Personally, I don't know if I would want to move back to the US right now, certainly not under the current government. However, just as there is goodness in Canada in all walks of Life (i.e., the people), so too is there goodness in the US. 

Unless I am very mistaken, this is what I think Sinc was/has been trying to make with many of his comments.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry Dr. G but it was "great southern neighbor" and "Washington" in the article. That's the collective not individual Americans.



> "frankly, I am sick of the smugness, the hypocrisy and the sheer hatred evinced by so many people towards the United States.
> 
> I've had enough of certain risible Canadians inflating themselves by claiming superiority over their southern neighbours.
> 
> I'm tired of the America-bashing from mediocrities the world over, and the blaming of every conceivable problem on Washington.


You can ride on past glories only so long.
America had the support and sympathy of the entire world after 9/11 and support for retaliating against Afghanistan where the attack was based from.

The support was squandered, a long standing policy of not attacking was over turned, decades of good will undone by foolish at best, malicious in many minds - policies of this government.

The vitriole from US itself and concerned citizens is often the very loudest. 
It's not unthoughtful disapproval- the US on it's current course is a danger to the entire world.
Silence about that is NOT an option for many including myself.

I don't buy the apologia.

[ August 17, 2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Quote all you like from the article.

I did not write it.

I just pointed out that there are other views of the U.S. out there.

And that I am sick and tired of people ranting and raving about fascism, etc.

It is like a broken record.

Give it a rest is all I say. 

I now know your opinion, but must I read it every single day?

Prescription: Valium.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> but must I read it every single day?


Nobody is forcing you to read "it."
At least I assume nobody is.
As with the Toronto Sun, I choose not to read it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"but to tar all Americans with the same brush is unfair" 
I don't and never have.

It's this admininstration in particular and certain elements in historical American "world character" and cultural bent.

If you look over posts you'll find many admiring of institutions like The Rockefeller Foundation, PBS, and many presidents and their efforts. Truman, Wilson etc.

But empires are dangerous beasts at the best of times to be viewed with caution.
When you got a whacked mahout like now..........


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> The "Me first and screw everybody else" isn't just an idea, it's ingrained moral at this point.


I agree America CAN be that way, but lets not point out the spec in our neigbours eye while ignoring the plank in our own.

Canadians CAN be no better. 

I see my neighbour leave his wife of 30 years without a dime while he hides his cash in offshore accounts. I see a family fighting over their ailing parents money like a bunch of spoiled kids and their parents are not even dead yet. I see a family of 13 kids have a mother take a stroke and lose some of her mental capacity and nobody steps up to the plate to take mom in, they send her off to a home even though many of them are quite wealthy and have ample room to keep her. Again, her finances are the big concern, who will get what when she dies. I see people lamenting the possible sale of a Canadian Institution, the Hudson's Bay Company to American company Target. Then they all fill the parking lot at Walmart and buy their stuff because its cheaper. I see daycare centers packed with kids from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. so the parents can have two SUVs in the driveway.

There was mention on this forum a few weeks back about a class action lawsuit being launched against ebay and many expressed interest in picking up an extra 50 bucks not even sure why the lawsuit was being launched. 

Although America has made some lame political decisions of late (as if we haven't), lets not exhault ourselves too much until we take a good look in the mirror. Yes America has problems but so do we.

Cheers
MacGuiver









[ August 18, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

some good points
i prefer not to shop at large stores like wal mart and prefer small shops run by the proprietor

i may pay a little more but i feel i put more money back into the local economy

the worship of the almighty dollar has brought society down to a sub human level where who and what you are is defined by how much money you have

the old joke of ; "You're so cheap, you'd sell your mother" has been replaced by; "When you sold your mother, did you get a good price?"

back to america
canada and america appear to be heading in very different directions as countries
the u.s. is arguably the richest country in the history of the world and yet a basic human right like health care goes unaddressed for over 10% of the population
in canada we appear to be trying to address social issues for all people
we are not perfect, but we try
in the u.s. the gulf between haves and have nots is growing deeper and wider and it doesn't appear that the haves really care

america has the resources to once again become the shining beacon of freedom to the world
i just don't have any faith that will happen

canada can and will be a model for the world

[ August 18, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

David, Macspectrum unfortunately you are both so blinded by your dislike for Bush that you don’t get it. That truly;no sarcasm intended,is your loss.

Dr G. encapsulated the topic admirably. 

We understand there are a lot of unsettling things that are coming out of the Bush administration, but to tar all Americans with the same brush is unfair.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

First, if you're an American in Canada and want to affect this election in a positive way, go to https://www.democrats.org/support/index.html?dsc=NETA238 and donate some $ to Kerry.

Second, while we shouldn't "tar all Americans with the same brush," Americans do have to take responsibility as a group for the leaders they elect and their government's positions to some extent (same goes for any government, even here in Alberta, grimace!). Now Bush didn't get in with a majority or even win the election by any democratic standard, but it was close enough that a LOT of Americans supported this guy. Now the election is too close to call (although Kerry does seem to be gaining ground), and if Americans elect Bush again then the world will be watching and judging. Austria was villified internationally for electing a far-right candidate to office, and he hadn't done half the things that Bush has. So no, don't villify individual Americans, but calling current American policy evil, stupid, shortsighted, arrogant and definitely dangerous is OK with me. Many of my American friends would use much stronger words. For the first time in my life I'm not just concerned about who will win the US election but honestly afraid that if Bush wins the world will turn into a much, much worse place.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I agree America CAN be that way, but lets not point out the spec in our neigbours eye while ignoring the plank in our own.


Subject for a new thread? "Canada Bashing Too!"

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh we had plenty of that during the election.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Are we having a discussion or just typing our points back and forth at each other? You decide (said in newscaster voice).

I agree that Canadians shouldn't simply polarize Americans as the other that we are not. Our cultures are very similar and very different in various respects. When two countries share the longest undefended border in the world it's hard not to have cultural intermingling. But the reality remains Americans are a diverse people just like Canadians. 

Make specific critcisms if you must but just base them in a specific context or example. And don't extrapolate the behaviour of some Americans to the greater complicated whole. I'd hope any educated inidividual would do the same for us Canucks. I realize most of us are doing this but I felt it needed to be stated.

I appreciate everyone's opinions here but I am sick of threads that seem to be members talking _at_ each other, not _with_ each other.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *I am sick of threads that seem to be members talking at each other, not with each other.
> *


AMEN!! That's been a beef of mine since I joined this community. Everyone has a different style of discussion and people are hard to change. Things are generally pretty civilized around here, though and the really heated debates seem to have subsided. The number of active participants in the good topics have seemed to have diminished as well. Hmmmm, wonder what happened???


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Add my, "Amen, brother!" to the comments made by CC and Peter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I might add that the "quantity" theory does nothing for me. 

Posts twelve miles long to make a point with many links are usually the sign of a "desperate to try and prove his case" poster.

Short and sweet is kind of neat!

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Short and sweet is kind of neat!"
As well, "sticks and stones may break my bones", but Sinc's words shall never falter. (After all, journalism has its perks when it comes to utilizing the English language.)


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

How's this for "Short and sweet"?










[edited to fix link]

[ August 18, 2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep.

You got the idea Vacuvox!

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've just gone through all six pages of this puppy. An interesting read. This thread is timely. I'd just LOVE to plunge into this one! Too bad I'm far too busy to even check in here these days. (The long hot summer has driven bottled water sales into the ionosphere and I'm spread pretty thin right now.)

Perhaps this weekend....


(BTW...bravo SINC! Well written and well thought out. As always.  )


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

macnutt wrote:


> driven bottled water -- into the ionosphere


Will this have an effect on global warming?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No doubt. The "fog of war" is partly evaporation from my burgeoning water sales...and partly sweat from all the crowds that are currently enjoying the record temperatures out here on the coast.
















BTW...you'll have to explain the "global warming" thing to our buddies back east. They have been experiencing the coolest and wettest summer in recent memory. Poor schmucks.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Senior Citizen? Surely you jest CC. 

I may be well over the hill compared to your fresh young self, but there's still fire in the furnace...and no snow on the roof, BTW. 









Five thousand posts doesn't automatically carry some sort of special award here at ehmac. If it did, then Macdoc and Dr G would have already gotten one a while back.

Who the F**K cares anyway? Five thousand posts just means I'm an opionated Scots loudmouth, after all.

And most of you already knew that by now anyway.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, I applied for my Canadian Old Age Subsidy, based on my "senior citizen" status here in ehMacLand, but it was denied. The form went on for a few pages, filled with legal jargon, but phrases like "you are a baby-boomer", "you cannot deduct your doxies as dependents", and "when hell freezes over and Macnutt runs for the NDP in Toronto" gives you an idea of the tone of this letter. So, I agree with Macnutt that regardless of the number of one's postings, it is the quality of these posts that matter, rather than their mere quantity. "Trust me on this one."


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> CC, I applied for my Canadian Old Age Subsidy, based on my "senior citizen" status here in ehMacLand, but it was denied. The form went on for a few pages, filled with legal jargon, but phrases like "you are a baby-boomer", "you cannot deduct your doxies as dependents", and "when hell freezes over and Macnutt runs for the NDP in Toronto" gives you an idea of the tone of this letter. So, I agree with Macnutt that regardless of the number of one's postings, it is the quality of these posts that matter, rather than their mere quantity. "Trust me on this one."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Only MacNutt could trun a 400 year level drought into "good news"









I guess it's entirely in keeping with Sincs' "short and sweet"

aka



> *Newspeak*
> The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, good thoughts and thoughtcrimes). *A staccato rhythm of short syllables was also a goal, further reducing the need for deep thinking about language*. (See: duckspeak In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck. Applied to an opponent, it indicates their argument is making no sense. Applied to oneself or friends, it means that they can talk nonsense for the good of all. Like so many Newspeak terms, it has two radically different meanings based on the rule that The Party is always right.
> ..... Click the link for more information. )
> 
> ...


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I stand amused. I could say something like "short and sweet" is sometimes good and sometimes it's just reductive rhetoric; however, I didn't say that. Ahem.  

Interesting picture. I'm not 100% sure how it applies to this thread but I have my "theories." More importantly the picture gave me a chucke. A picture is worth a 1000 words - and other such clichés.









Hey MacNutt if you -- no, _when_ you -- break the 5000 post mark do you think you'll be promoted to Senior Citizen at ehMac?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Drought, plague, doxies and locust are the four horsemen of the apocalypse.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Wow...what a long and interesting read...a little frustrating too at times. I kept a running tab on a few things I wanted to note or correct in Word, so my apologies for not also noting who wrote which comment along the way. 

On Sudan: 


> “(That's because the militias have run out of people to kill, women to rape, and villages to raze).
> 
> But we had a UN security council something or other, that counts right?
> 
> Sure, it obvious soft power works....”


It's difficult to mobilize the UN or its security council when the U.S. dominates its agenda. The U.S. is too occupied with the so-called War on Terror and Iraq to be able to support a UN mission to Sudan. The U.S. is also demanding that the UN and its members become reengaged in the mess it created in Iraq. After-all, you're either WITH the U.S. or AGAINST the U.S. right?

However, the U.S. is still gazillions of dollars behind in paying its dues to the UN because it opposes UN programs that include providing condoms (instead of lessons on abstinence) to AIDS-devastated countries; or health programs that also permit abortions in certain, limited cases. So, this leaves the UN in one helluva pickle. It can't hope to finance a mission to Sudan until the U.S. pays its dues. 



> I remain convinced that Iraq will end up far better off in the long run thanks to the U.S, the British, the Australians, the Poles, the Bulgarians, and the other countries who remember the importance of free nations.


You're right. Nothing instills a sense of ownership of democracy and freedom when your country is being illegally occupied by foreign nations; your leaders are hand-picked by Washington instead of elected by the people; your police are corrupt and untrained; your citizens are held in prisons without charges and tortured by your so-called "liberators," your cities are overrun with criminals and police that are powerless to stop them; and daily life is far worse now than it was under the rule of Saddam Hussein. 

Iraq is a cluster-f**k of epic proportions and the U.S. still refuses to accept responsibility for the mess they have made for themselves and the world. 

I think an important fact that has somehow been lost during this whole discussion is that the original problem with the Iraq conflict has been one of process. It was the U.S.'s and the U.K.'s decision to take unilateral action that has caused the gigantic rift between western allies and friends in the Middle East. If the U.S. and the U.K. had waited for the UN weapons inspectors to complete their work and had they also respected the UN Security Council things would be better. 

And make no mistake, Canada would have gone into Iraq had the UN Security Council authorized it. The reason that Canada, France, Germany and other allies were so opposed to going into Iraq was because it violated international treaties and laws that they all had agreed to. If the U.S. and U.K. followed the rules they had already agreed to, many of the problems they now face could have been avoided. 



> When a minor politician called the US President a "Moron" I got mad; she should have used a much stronger and more accurate set of words, "Moron" just doesn't do him justice at all.


Actually, it was not a minor politician who said that, it was former Prime Minister Jean Chretien's communications director, Francis Ducros, who said that. "Minor Politician" and Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish called Americans 
bastards though.  

And the only other thing that I care to comment on at the moment is the odd notion that it is our soldiers who would somehow protect Canada against terrorist attacks. This could not be further from reality and I highly advise people to get informed. Soldiers fight wars and contribute to peace keeping or peace building operations. An attack on Canada will not come in the form of an invasion for our soldiers to defend against. There will not be boatloads of terrorists washing up on the shores of Newfoundland & Labrador, BC or Nova Scotia with their weapons drawn. Any attack will be swift and brutal...as was the case in New York, as was the case Madrid. 

You see it really doesn't matter how tired or stretched our military is because our soldiers will not be on the front lines when the terrorists come. It will be your local first responders...the police, the firefighters, the doctors & nurses and our hospitals. It will be municipal governments and the provincial government(s) of the province(s) hit by any attack(s). 

And luckily our governments, at all levels, have been addressing this ever since 9/11, 2001. This is why countless millions have gone into tighter boarder security (done in concert with the U.S.), tighter airport security measures, new equipment, more training for first responders, new legislation to provide improved policing tools and powers, greater information sharing with allies, the first National Security Policy our country has ever had and on-going commitments to security activities abroad to keep the country safe. 

There are also lots of other things being done to keep Canada safe, but it's sheer ignorance that keeps people believing that more military funding is going to keep terrorists at bay. That's not how wars are fought anymore...and our friends to the south and across the pond need to realize this. Sometimes when all your friends and allies around the world are telling you that you are about to step into the abyss...it might be wise to listen.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> You see it really doesn't matter how tired or stretched our military is because our soldiers will not be on the front lines when the terrorists come.


Duh.

But it is where the terrorists come "FROM" that we will need to defend ourselves and that is not in Canada.

When that happens, we will need the assistance of the U.S. to even begin to eradicate them. We could not do so alone.

So you see, it DOES matter how "tired or stretched" our military has become.

Cheers


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *But it is where the terrorists come "FROM" that we will need to defend ourselves and that is not in Canada.
> When that happens, we will need the assistance of the U.S. to even begin to eradicate them. We could not do so alone.*


Interesting perspective. So, if we were to be attacked by a terrorist group, we would automatically want to "eradicate" them and would surely need the help of the US. Is that because they have so far been so successful and efficient in doing so with their massive resources and military might? The Bin Ladin search reminds me of a 'Where's Waldo?' book. The difference is that we CAN find Waldo and we don't leave countries, families and economies in ruin in the process. Nothing like getting people p****d off with you to get their cooperation and admiration, much less be on your side.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I was following your last post with great interest, Vertigogo, as I always do.

But when you began to rant on about how "America controls the UN" and that THIS was the reason that the UN had not done anything about the ongoing genocide in the Sudan I just fell off my chair laughing my a** off!
















Too funny.  

Post some more like that. We could all use a good chuckle to relieve the boredom.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> When that happens, we will need the assistance of the U.S. to even begin to eradicate them. We could not do so alone.


Perhaps it would be better to help lift people from the squalor of their lives.
Busy people with jobs, food, homes, children in school and a future rarely have time for terrorism.

Ounce of prevention and a pound of cure?

Or you can just go about building a wall/fence/barrier around Canada.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> you began to rant on about how "America controls the UN"


you mean like when the U.S. prevented Arafat from speaking at the UN, at their invitation, because the U.S. denied him entry?
even thought that is strictly against the deal the UN has with the US?


tell me another fairy tale


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> But it is where the terrorists come "FROM" that we will need to defend ourselves and that is not in Canada.
> 
> When that happens, we will need the assistance of the U.S. to even begin to eradicate them. We could not do so alone.
> 
> So you see, it DOES matter how "tired or stretched" our military has become.


Well, when Canada is finally attacked by terrorists it will not be by Iraqis, it will be by Osama and his buddies. And guess what? Canada already has troops in Afghanistan! In fact, they are the largest force in the Afghanistan allied contingent. In fact, we just finished leading all NATO troops in that region. You see, it is Canada assisting the U.S. in that particular "war" because the U.S. military is stretched too thin in Iraq. 



> But when you began to rant on about how "America controls the UN" and that THIS was the reason that the UN had not done anything about the ongoing genocide in the Sudan I just fell off my chair laughing my a** off!
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Post some more like that. We could all use a good chuckle to relieve the boredom.


Macnutt...you speak as someone who clearly has no clue how the UN and the international community works (or doesn't work, depending on your point of view). As someone who has worked for an international security organization in a post-conflict zone (Bosnia), I do have some knowledge of this subject. 

I do not blame the U.S. for the Sudan situation, but I do recognize that it would take the U.S.'s agreement and participation in a UN mission to Sudan in order for it to work. However, given that they are spread too thin around the world at the moment (and are having to forcefully recall retired military personnel to boost their other missions abroad), they simply do not have the resources to take part in Sudan. 

However, if the U.S. didn't have every soldier and their uncle over in Iraq at the moment, in an illegitimate war, there would be enough resources to get Sudan on the radar screen.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

At the risk of being lambasted and called names that mother used to call me, do you really find this thread interesting?  

I've read and heard so much about the US these days if the continent split along our border and they just dropped in to the oceans I would barely give a passing glance except to wonder if the surfing would be any good in Windsor.

I'm gonna start 'chick' threads I swear.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

So sorry if you don't find every single thread on this forum to be interesting. Start all the chick threads you like, feel free. Speaking for myself (and who else can I speak for?) I appreciate the lively debates - even if I don't always participate. Oh, and by the way, that's your home page? And you talk about boring.
Sign me
Gobsmacked


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Wow, 'Fruit of the Looms' a little tight sport? 

I really don't care what threads people fire up, or what the subject material is. I simply inquired as to whether people actually found the constant topic of the USA and what act of stupidity their government was up to interesting. Of course the fact that you felt the need to take it as a personal attack or something on your person speak volumes about you as a person. 

My home page? What on earth has that got to do with anything? It is _a_ homepage yes, it's not _my_ homepage. As someone that works in the investment and banking industry I simply inserted an address. Would you somehow feel better if it were say....maxim.com?







I actually like the magazine. 

Well maybe I will start a 'chick' thread, so







there! Hahaha, that was like Junior High


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Gretchen "threatened":

*I'm gonna start 'chick' threads I swear.*

You better deliver on this promise. 'chick' threads are an underdeveloped territory.

We will see how long one can last without devolving into us bashing the US. };¬)

iG/<


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Someboy's gonna start up "chick threads" here at ehmac?? _WOOO_HOOO_







  

Count me IN!

Now THAT should bring in some new members! And start a few very lively discussions! Bot HOWDY!

Wait a minute...hold the phone....

This America bashing thing seems to have a rather distinctive middle eastern tact to it these days. Hmmmmm...

Hang on...are we talking about middle eastern "chicks" here?

If so, then I'm starting to get a visual. And I'm not sure that the Chadors and Burkas are going to cut it. Not at all.  

Somehow, the full-length-body-bags-with-eyeslits that most of the women in this region are currently forced to wear whenever they are out in public (in blinding heat, by the way) just doesn't add to the whole "chick" thing, for me.

I mean...HECK...they could actually be _GUYS_ in there, for all we know! YIKES!  

Scary stuff.

So, tell you what. Since the Americans seem to be the ONLY country that is actually trying to DO something to actively change the fate of the women in this region...and alter the current reality so that the women in the area can actually vote in a free election, learn to read and write, own property, and choose to wear whatever clothes or shoes they want to in public...

Perhaps...and this is just a random thought...we should all just sit back and CAN the "America bashing" until we see if they are actually sucessful in their efforts in the middle east. (They've made great strides in this direction in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and have had very positive spinoff results in Libya, so far. And that's only after about three years of actual effort, after all)

Women ("chicks") in these countries are all wayyy better off than they were about three years back. No question about THAT at all.

Iran is still in the dark ages, but the people in that country are currently agitating for a major change that would throw off the heavy restrictions on what women wear and do, and how they manage their own lives on a daily basis. Full democracy is looming on the horizon for that restrictive theocracy as well.

Saudi Arabia is also ripe for change right now. 

Sometime VERY soon, the Chadors and Burkas and all of the other full-length bodybags that the women in the region are now forced to wear could be just a sad and silly memory.

At that point, I might suggest a few new "chick threads".

And a few less "America-bashing" threads. Since, by that time, it will have been the singular efforts of the Americans that have positively changed the fate of all the "chicks" in this whole region. Forever. (As we all know by now, the UN is totally powerless these days. They can't and WON'T change any of this without some sort of a serious push from the outside.)

You might want to stop and think about this for a moment. BEFORE you go ahead and bash away at the Americans, yet again. Especially about their current efforts in the middle east.  

Just my thoughts on this.

[ August 21, 2004, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Just when I think you cannot go anymore to the right, Macnutt, you go and surprise me.  That is some of the most hateful and racist things I have ever heard come out of you. And THAT is pretty scary stuff. 

If you think, even for a moment, that what the U.S. is doing in the Middle East is about improving the lives of women you are mistaken. Have another toke of your BC Bud! They went to war for oil...plain and simple. 

Your comments about Muslim women and their traditional clothes are just outrageous. While I will certainly concede that women are treated terribly in many parts of the Middle East (as well as many places in western societies), many women of the Muslim faith are not "forced" to wear their religious dress, they do so by choice. For you to insinuate that all Muslim women are forced to wear traditional clothing and that it is somehow stupid or something reprehensible is a disgusting statement. 

It's some pretty intense self-righteousness that imagines the only way to live is the North American way.    ...not unlike the dictator that has been removed from power.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> You might want to stop and think about this for a moment. BEFORE you go ahead and bash away at the Americans, yet again. Especially about their current efforts in the middle east.


we will when you learn to communicate with full sentences.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Especially about their [U.S.] current efforts in the middle east.


They've only been meddling for over 25 years and they are still making things worse.

High time for America to get out of the middle east and to support the UN, and independant Palestine and a peacekeeping force that will be the ONLY way to keep peace. Slowly over the years, when people can be more concerned with building homes, sending children to schools, and planting gardens instead of boms, perhaps some mutual respect and understanding can take place betweent the peoples in the region.

The continuing sovreignty of Israel and peace for its citizens rests in an independant and prosperous Palestine.

Oil barons don't like peace. It's bad for business.

Tear down walls, not build them.

[ August 21, 2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> British Intelligence has also been actively assisting the currrent regime since its inception.


more meddling


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You know you talk about freedom etc.  

People's have different cultures and are moving through development of their societies and political institutions at different stages......as we are

Sovereignity is an idea that empires don't like and that middle and small nations treasure immensely. Ask Vincente Fox how important Mexican sovereignty is after trying for centuries to get out from under meddling world powers.

Puritans wore black, burned witches, nuns are under the thumb of the "man's church" the lists of cultural atrocities is endless over time. The Europeans were smelly savages to the high culture of Japan.

Give other societies the respect, support, aid and example instead of expecting them to be as we are.
The west has certain virtues and lots and lots of examples of poor stewardship of the planet and minorities its "culture" comes in contact with..

West Coat indigenes took care of their land and resources for thousands of years - who are we to call their way of life savage and untutored  

Iran with religious fanactics on the rampage is little different than mobs of WTLs harridans smashing demon rum barrels in the 30s.

Moderation and human rights take time to develop and a peaceable climate without meddling from other nations intent on self serving goals.

Sovereignity is a critical value and should not be dependent on force of arms but on respect.
Bush senior knew that, that's a major reason why the coalition stopped short of Bhagdad.

The world including the Arab world was ready to remedy a breach of Kuwait sovereignity and territory but NOT ready to commit the same breach upon Iraq.
The mechanism was not and is not in place. It was close, had the pressure continued and action been undertaken with the UN support, perhaps it would have become a model for future remedies.

The gradual pressure on Libya and change has seen results without invasion.

If ruling governments and cultures have elements that dismay you - women's rights in this case - then both recognise that it's their issue to deal with and support your own governments action to tie trade/aid with reform.

Being a model of minority and multicultural society, providing respect for nations that differ in culture or progress while offering aid, education and treating with other nations fairly works over time.

It took Europe an immense time to get there.
It took Germany an immense time to overcome internal warring principalities.
Peoples are on different timelines in development.
Nations are on different timelines.

We the west do not always have good answers or good methodologies. There are older cultures that look for respect for their wisdom. It needs be a fair exchange.
Diversity and peaceful co-existence IS possible. We set an example ( not always successful but likely the best so far ) for other societies with strong minorities.

In my eyes we HAVE a better exportable society and charter for citizens than the US does.
I suspect in the eyes of many if not most developing nations that is true.
Canada has a history of promoting world bodies and multilateral organization., of being a peacable nation.

Neither the US nor Britain have that claim. Hence they are feared and suspected...with good reason.
Both cultures have racist and "superiority" issues that are often not far from the surface.

Europe is moving in the right direction in my mind, putting aside differences for the greater good of the general population....again not perfectly and it will take time. Some age old suppressions like that of Catalonians are being corrected peaceably - others like the Basques remain an issue, and violent one.

The world is facing an enormous strain on it's resources and environment in the next 50 years.
Actions like those in Iraq without world support fracture the fragile web of mutual trust and support.

and that's unforgiveable..........Bush begone......soon I fervently hope.

[ August 21, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thak you - I was in a "passionate frame of mind" writing that.  

••••

BTW there are a couple of very prominent American's who forewarned the inherent risks within the US I and others are concerned about.



> *Benjamin Franklin* on the US Constitution
> 
> _This is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism ... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other._





> *President Eisenhower*, in his Final Address to the Nation, January 17, 1961 warned of.....
> _the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the US military-industrial complex and its potential to endanger liberties and the democratic processes ._


That these leaders recognised inherent dangers even at the founding of America and at it's emergence as a super power perhaps makes ongoing discussion and observation when the dangers appear a worthwhile endeavour
.........to thoughtful people the world over. 

We do not wish America ill........we wish the world well.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Well said!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Macdoc writes:



> Neither the US nor Britain have that claim. Hence they are feared and suspected...with good reason. Both cultures have racist and "superiority" issues that are often not far from the surface.


Sorry Macdoc, but that sounds like self righteous triumphalism, bordering on racism to me. Scratch a modern Brit or American and find a 19 century Jingoist beneath? Complete nonsense... how many Americans and Brits have you met? Care to substantiate?



> Canada has a history of promoting world bodies and multilateral organization., of being a peacable nation.


I think you'll find that is true of most nations who have never been world powers. It's in their interest after all. In any case though, we're hardly as admirable as you like to think. For example, our financial contribution to the third world lags far behind Europe in per capita terms. Our treatment of our own native people remains questionable, probably shameful. And I'll bet that despite lots of rhetoric, Paul Martin will swallow his anti American bombast and will go along with their new missile programme. Given the state he's left our military, we really don't have much of a choice.

I'll agree with you that we have much to teach the world... but we have much to learn from the world too. Having lived here for 25 years, I believe Canada's biggest weakness is that we rarely compare ourselves to anyone but the Americans. That leads to complacency in some areas (our health care system, support for the third world) and resignation in others. (economic power, military strength etc) Our targets are both too easy and too hard... we need to recalibrate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's memories and "within living memories" both the US and Britain have been middle east meddlers let alone historically in the Great Game era.

Along with of course the USSR/Russia.

Of course we have our own issues to deal with but US or Britain are/were geopolitical entities not races.
Both have long histories and cultural expansion tendencies within their respective cultures and political postures.

Some religions proselytize other don't.
Cultures/nations differ in their approach to others. We can hardly get a solid handle on "US cultural encroachment" ourselves.

If your geopolitical area gets meddled with long enough do you really think it's unreasonably to think it's still going on when the same players defy their major allies.  

We can always do better but underneath this OUR foreing policy promotes multilateral actions and has for many years.

The US itself is navel gazing on the issue. Most of the rest made up their minds a while back......wrong headed action that created more instability not less.

Did you read who the author of this quote is..it's posted elsewhere????

_To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability._

and it's one main reason THAT Bush has my respect.

Whether we achieve all our goals as world citizen doesn't take away from our world view as being a nation who perceives multilateral approach to issues as vital. Trade, aid, respect.

Jingoism is NEVER far from the surface in the US - just look at the WTO issues and things like soft wood trade and agricultural subsidies.

Britain less so certainly having been through the "withdrawal from empire" painful process.
Still the history of British imperialism echoes in many areas and irritates some even here in Canada and in Australia ( anti- royalist etc ).

One very interesting development in my mind, speaking of empires receding, is Bush's decision to "bring the troops home" from Europe etc.
That has many echoes of receding empires and I would view it as a good thing over all tho it may in the short term casue upheaval.

*Is Bin Laden a modern day Arminius?*

Perhaps marking the receding not only in the dissolution of the soviet empire but the retreat of the American one??????
Arminius was trained by Rome and defeated Rome who never again tried to expand their boundaries and went into long decline.



> Arminius (18 BC? - AD 19), Chief of the Cherusci (a Teutonic tribe) *spent six years in the Roman army (AD 1-6), learning the Roman arts of war and policy.* Arminius gained Roman citizenship, and returned home to Germany in AD 7. There he discovered his people being oppressed by the Roman Governor P. Quinctilius Varus and started a rebellion against Rome.





> By the end of the battle three Roman legions were massacred by Arminius' tribes. Estimates of the actual numbers of men involved vary from 20,000 to 25,000, which are devastating numbers even if you take the conservative estimate! *This defeat led to Rome losing all its possessions east of the Rhine, making the river the most north-easterly border of the Empire* (however, Rome also decided that it simply wasn't worth the risk to troops and there wasn't much there anyway that they couldn't get by other means!). Towards the end of the battle, upon seeing that his army was going to be completely destroyed, and fearing capture or slaughter, Varus committed suicide by falling upon his sword.


http://www.falcophiles.co.uk/facts/teutoburg.html 

It's a fascinating story and the history of Europe was forever changed by that battle and the uniting of the German tribes.
The actual site was recently discovered and excavated - the hasty fortifications thrown up still intact when the excavation proceded.

With Bin Laden and even Saddam, it's so ironic that they once were trained and valued allies of the US and of course Saddam played both sides of the street with the USSR.

Arminuis.....terrorist or freedom fighter.???



> In 1875, a statue of Arminius was erected near the place where he defeated Varus. He is hailed a hero by German Nationalists, who call him Hermann, for freeing Germany from Roman tyranny.


I guess it depends whether you were German or Roman. 

Remember when I said memories of peoples were long........that statue was raised to Arminius almost 2000 years later.

One of the primary issues the world community has to deal with is how to work with different "peoples" when cultural and national boundaries do not coincide.... a work in progress even here and no easy answers to the problem.......Czech and Slovak recently dissolved one "nation" that wasn't working for it's two "peoples".

Yugoslavia - who knows yet - artifical state.....then Iraq very much in doubt, also an artifical state. and then there is Israel Palestine.









Sometimes I think a visit by aliens might actually resolve some differences!!!!!
At least the Olympics and other multinational celebrations offer some faint hope for a relatively peacefu planet and if not always peaceful a rational method of working together to "keep the peace".

Took Ireland 400 years and it's still tentative.









[ August 22, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Vertigogo is correct that it's unjust to just label all women as oppressed in Middleastern countries that require head dresses. There is oppression and sexism; however, not all women oppose or look negatively on how they're treated and they're not just compliant victims who know no better. The latter attitude is close-minded and ethnocentric.

We might as well examine ourselves. Canada portrays itself as liberal, open-minded, progressive and mulitcultural. Nevertheless there's still a lot of white heterosexual Christians and their underlying beliefs in our society. Even if you aren't white or Christian (or heterosexual!) you likely have inherited many of these beliefs. Sometimes I'm surprised to find how out many people's views in "left-coast" B.C. can be close-minded.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Some people here have decided to concentrate on my comments about the all-encompassing body coverings that women are forced to wear in much of the region we know as the middle east.

Any of those same people care to comment about the rest of my statement? Like the fact that women are most definitely second class citizens and are restricted in travel, education, prevented from owning property, etc? Not in ALL of the nations of the middle east, mind you...but in many of them.

Any of you who took offence at my post (and who, laughably, claimed it was "all about oil") care to speculate what will happen to any of the more restrictive middle eastern nations if they should attain true democracy?

Will the women of those countries STILL be treated differently than the men? Will they still be told what to wear? Where to go, and with whom? That they cannot buy a car or own land without the permission of a prominent male relative?

American led intervention in Afghanistan has allowed women the right to be educated for the first time in decades. They are now allowed to learn to read and write. They are no longer beaten or executed for wearing the wrong shoes in public.

Women in Iraq were not under as severe a set of restrictions as in Afghanistan...but it is not likely that whatever inequalities that existed during the Saddam years will fall away once full democracy is achieved?

I wonder if these two examples will begin to alter the fortunes of women all across the region?(gee..do ya think?) Especially since Iran looks to be on the brink of a new democratic revolution itself these days.

One that wouldn't have been possible if Saddam or his sons were still running Iraq.

Is this not an improvement? A signifigant one?

Is the US not a major force in this improvement of fortunes?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Is the US not a major force in this improvement of fortunes?


The current U.S. administration is interested only in its own fortunes.

number of WMDs = 0


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> Women in Iraq were not under as severe a set of restrictions as in Afghanistan...but it is not likely that whatever inequalities that existed during the Saddam years will fall away once full democracy is achieved?


Under Saddam, Iraq was a secular state...women had more opportunities (and took advantage of them) than they would have if they were under a government such as Saudi Arabia's, Iran or even Kuwait!

I find it unbelievable, astounding, mind-boggling, shocking, disturbing, and sad (wait, let me get my Roget) the level of ignorance that macnutt seems to show whenever he posts. Like, where does he get this stuff? And does the government know?!

At times, I have to wonder if ehMac trots him out every once in a while in order to increase the number of posts a thread will get!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

never let something like facts get in the way of a good rant


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thank you IronMac - equality in Iraq was better under Saddam than any other Arab state as he discouraged fundamentalist approachs seeing it as a threat ( sound familiar







)

It took a hunger strike by women to get the vote in the US and not so very long ago.
First Nation citizens were not allowed to vote in Canada until 1960.
MacNutt is grasping at straws a this point.

He has zero concept of what sovereignity actually means tho I suspect he'd make a big noise about SSI applying eminent domain on his own property.

Texas think......"Here we come to y'all to save the wimmen folk...yee haw"









Afghanistan was quite a modern state in the 60s and 70s


> in 1964 did a new constitution provide for a constitutional Afghan monarchy based on the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial authorities.


until it got caught up in the war with the USSR and became a cold war pawn.
It was a constitutional democracy and women were active at many levels including university.
A series of coups destabilized the country and the invasion by the USSR led to decades of fighting that has left the country shattered.

Religious fundamentalism has played a role in many nations and peoples at different times both in North America and in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

The "mantle of the western god" as Bush's emperor's cloak simply gave credence to Middle East suspicions about renewed crusades.

Even one of his "allies" can see it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

IronMac.... I must say that I find your selective use of parts of my posts to ridicule and insult me rather disquieting. Reminds me of another who used to hang around here. Who also had a rather abrasive personality and who ALSO used to spend a lot of time insulting and ridiculing anyone who didn't agree with his particular views. Mostly by using small portions of their previous posts out of context.

He's gone now. Permanently banished. (or at least I _THOUGHT_ he was....)

Now on to my rebuttal to your latest set of insults:

The point I was trying to make was this:
Under Saddam, women in Iraq were not as severely restricted as they are in some of the Nations of the region. But, make no mistake about it, ALL Iraqis suffered restrictions on their personal freedoms under that psychopathic tyrant. Women even more so than men.

-A self-determining democracy in that former dictatorship WILL allow full participation by BOTH genders in all aspects of what we call a modern society. This is a no-brainer. It is also a huge leap from what they had when Saddam was still running the show.

-A self-determining democracy in Iraq, coupled with the current move towards democracy in Iran (which wouldn't have been possible with Saddam right next door) WILL have a far-reaching and very positive effect on the whole region. Once these two key countries are running their own show and making their own way in the world, they will be able to turn their own oil wealth into real prosperity for ALL of the population...not waste it on lavish palaces for a single despot and his closest friends and family. (the ones that he had not yet murdered, that is)

-Free democracies are rather less likely to make war upon their neghbors than despotic dictatorships. Mostly, the people vote against it. Oddly enough.

-Free democracies...especially prosperous ones with a rapidly rising standard of living for ther citizens...are a powerful draw for the less fortunate in neighboring states. Eventually, those living in the more restrictive countries nearby begin to agitate and demand the same sort of freedoms and prosperity for themselves. Or flee to the new democracies in large numbers. Either way, that is the beginning of the end for all of the long-term despotic dictatorships in the whole area.

And THAT is the end...or at least the beginning of the end...to the ongoing violence and strife that has dominated the whole of the middle east for so very long.

All because the Americans had the stones to go in and change the situation once and for all. No one else had the will. 

And it would NEVER have changed, had they not begun the process by force. It would have gotten worse and worse, until it spilled out and touched ALL of us.

The wake-up call was the hi-jacking attacks and mass murder in New York and Washington on sept 11th 2001.

The process of fundamental change has begun. A potentially deadly area of the planet will, eventually, become rather less deadly. To us and to all of the residents of the area.

But the process will take _YEARS_. It will be a long time before all of the benefits become apparent...especially to some of the more ideolgically blinded among us.

Just as it did when the old Soviet Empire collapsed.

(I recall many of my more leftish friends freaking out during that period....they all claimed that they felt "MUCH less safe" than they had when the old Cold War standoff was still keeping the "United States at bay" They seemed to think that the sky was about to fall at any moment back then.)


Personally, I have a hard time understanding just exactly why so many cannot grasp the long-term positives of the war on terrorism. Or why they cannot use well documented historical precedents to see that this is exactly the right course of action.

And NONE of the loudest critics at this forum have EVER been able to answer my simple question on this subject. One I first asked many, many months ago. So I will ask it again:

"How would YOU have turned this violent region of the world into a free and prosperous and independant group of democracies? How would YOU have ended the threat of violent acts of mass terror from the middle east, once and for all? If you disagree with how the US-led coalition is conducting this campaign to rid the world of terrorism...then how would YOU have done it?"

Please be specific.

And try to save the insults for some other time. Bandwidth is an issue around here, and it wastes space. (Or you can PM me if you really feel the need to vent).

Awaiting your carefully considered replies. 

[ August 23, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

All right, time to go to WAR!!!  

Selective use of parts of your post? Get real man! What selective use? My mistake was not to finish what I had wanted to say in response to this quote:



> Women in Iraq were not under as severe a set of restrictions as in Afghanistan...but it is not likely that whatever inequalities that existed during the Saddam years will fall away once full democracy is achieved?


The end to that is that women in Iraq, as a result of American interventionism, will likely be WORSE off once the Americans leave. You think their puppet government will be able to placate the fundamentalists without ditching women's rights?

What I find disrespectful and insulting on YOUR part is the fact that you come in here with your platitudes, rhetoric and I-know-best attitude. You consistently ignore any requests for credible facts to back up what you say. You do not acknowledge any corrections to your so-called "facts" when they are pointed out to you.

You expect people to answer YOUR questions but you do not answer others'. Your idea of debate is to stand on your soapbox and expect everyone to give you the Sieg Heil.

I'm sorry but goosestepping is bad for my knees.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_How would YOU have turned this violent region of the world into a free and prosperous and independant group of democracies?_"

Still having problem with the concept of "sovereign nations" I see.

You and Kipling   



> Take up the White Man's burden--
> Send forth the best ye breed--
> Go bind your sons to exile
> To serve your captives' need;
> ...


YANKEE GO HOME........how hard is that to understand.

It's up to the people's of the region to work out their issues.
THEY are sovereign nations. 
They may request help or NOT.
They may sell their oil or NOT.
They may make treaties with others or NOT.

It's up to THEM....no one else.

Why do you think Vincente Fox said "up yours" to Bush?????because HE UNDERSTANDS SOVEREIGNTY.
You don't.......obviously.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Boys time to take a breather.

MacNutt the point on headdress may have been a knit-pick but it was used as an example to prove the point that as outsiders all we can ever have is an outsiders view. Our best beliefs and intentions may not mesh and may not even be wanted in other parts of the world. 

As for a true democracy in Iraq, that's not likely any time soon. The Americans may have helped pave the way but it will take the people of Iraq to make that choice and take the first real steps. And quite frankly after American and other non-UN meddling a lot of strong anti-Western sentiment is likely to resurge in a violent wave (for a while anyway).

As for the name calling going on, it's time to stop children. Opinion slinging is tiring me out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_Our best beliefs and intentions may not mesh and may not even be wanted in other parts of the world. _

Now THAT should be drilled into each wannabe politician in the US and anywhere else that thinks theirs is the "only way".
 

There's no particular evidence that a western style democracy - which took hundreds of years to develop and still is wonky - is by any means the "best' governing approach for countries at various stages of their existence and development cycles.

Benevolent monarchies and "strong men" have seen successful regimes with generally contented populaces. When ANY style of government gets oppressive trouble lies ahead and that includes democracies.

Humans are tribal and heirarchical as are our near relative primates.
One thing that is clear for likely millions of years is we are territorial.....big time.
Hence sovereignity is a BIG TIME issue for human "tribes", peoples, nations, even neighbors and neighboring municipalities ( Hurricane Hazel wants to seceed from Peel  ).

Breach that sense of territory and you tap the deepest emotions to fight. Any sense of invasion is a deep rooted anaethema.
Get to close to a person from certain culures and get a mouth full of knuckles while other cultures tolerate much closer proximity.

Bush has tapped that deep rooted fear of encroachment.
Mexico lost 1/3 of it's territory to the US and still smarts over it - memories are long.

Westerners in the cradle of civiization - memories are even longer and the roots of suspicion even deeper - 20 million Iraqi's under 25...powder keg indeed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Unlike most of the people here who seem to have a vocal opinion about what is "traditional" and what is "forced by dictatorial law" upon the people of far off lands, I have actually spent a great portion of my adult life working and living in some of these dictatorships. Long term.

It gives you a far different perspective on this sort of stuff. Trust me on this.

As for the difference between a "soveriegn nation" and an absolute dictatorship (where one man makes all of the decisions and the people of that land are just powerless pawns on his personal chessboard), all I can say is this...

Macdoc, and Ironmac....you should get out more. You have NO idea.

None whatsoever.  

As for the current movement toward democracy in Iraq:

It is clearly well underway. (but it will take YEARS before the transition is complete).

What's more...the government that is running the place right now is NOT made up of the first choice that the Americans really wanted. Not by half.

And the ongoing violence in Iraq these days is as likely to be directed against _IRAQI_ authority figures, like police or politicians, as it is to be directed against the US or Coalition forces that are still there to maintain some semblance of order.

This is gang style warfare jockeying for a position of power in the sudden absence of any strong authority. They want a chunk of this ripe and rich plum while it is still dangling from the newly formed branch. And they'll kill anyone or blow up anything or sacrafice any one (or ALL) of their minions in order to accomplish this.

Because all that matters is who is on top when the smoke clears. To the victor go the spoils. Simple as that.

When democracy finally DOES become established in Iraq, the people of that ravaged country WILL have vastly more personal freedoms than they had under the psychopathic reign of Saddam and his vermin offspring.

And that is especially true for the women of Iraq.

I should also note here that the loudest and most shrill of the critics are STILL dodging the very same question that they have been avoiding for the better part of a year. So I will re-state it AGAIN:

"How would YOU turn Iraq into a free democracy? How would YOU stop the cycle of violence? What would YOU do to prevent this ever-increasing violence from again spilling out of the region and keep it from screwing up our own relatively peaceful modern society?"

Again, I await your carefully considered replies. Or your carefully constructed dodge to the ongoing question.

Either one should tell the rest of us rather a lot, I'd imagine.

So will complete avoidance masked by hurled insults and personal attacks.  

[ August 24, 2004, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Avoiding the charges laid above I see? Typical. There are no "hurled insults" or "personal attacks". The first charge is one of willful ignorance. The following is irrelevant because, as both you and someone else on this board proves, simply because you are on the ground does not mean that you actually see anything. It also raises the interesting question of what you were doing in those countries because I can't believe it's anything as benign as missionary work.



> I have actually spent a great portion of my adult life working and living in some of these dictatorships. Long term.


The later charge lays out YOUR disrespectful and patronizing attitude towards the rest of us.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Insults and derision. As usual. And total avoidance of the stated question. Nothing has changed.  

As for "What I was doing" in all of these far flung spots....

Long-term members here will tell you (or an ehmac search will reveal) that I was, for almost thirty years, a specialised lab technician. One who found himself working in a mobile testing laboratory at wellsite (frontier drilling for hydrocarbons). Exploratory oilwell stuff, in your language. "Wildcat overseas drilling" in the vernacular of the oilpatch.

We went where no man had gone before...and where no one in their right mind would ever WANT to go. At least not on purpose.

I went to work for a laboratory testing company at the tender age of eighteen (I did particularly well in school and got spotted by some scouts....they were hiring anyone who could see straight and speak passable english, and who was up for a bit of an adventure, at that particular moment in time).

As it turned out, I was particularly good at interpreting the incoherent streams of numbers that were generated by a gas chromatograph when it encountered unknown hydrocarbon deposits. I could make total sense of this stuff (even though I can't make sense of my own sock drawer).

So...after a rather sucessful stint in the High Arctic Islands (just slightly south of the North Pole, actually), I was asked by the big American Oil Services Company that I worked for if I wanted to try "an overseas position".

The pay grade they offered was outstanding! At 19 years old, I would be making more than both my Mom and Dad combined...and the company promised to "take very good care of all my needs".

So I went! Happily!

What a crock it turned out to be.  

I ended up working in all sorts of fly-blown bug pits that no one in their right mind would even VISIT on a bet! And I LIVED in these places for months or years at a time. Once or twice a year, I would travel back to Company headquarters in Houston Texas (mostly to renew my work visa or to get more vaccinations for all of the horrible diseases that are always present in these pustlous fetid "jungle jobs")

During this time my mailing address was in whatever far-flung and forgotten corner of this planet that I was working in at that particular moment. 

Canada, at the time, was but a distant memory for me.

During those years I saw things, and dealt with stuff, that you cannot even begin to comprehend from the relative safety of your modern Canadian world. I dealt with this stuff on a daily basis. Wars, dictatorships, corrupt officials, regular power outages, theives and rebels, foul water and food that was unfit to eat, blinding heat and tropical diseases, bugs and snakes that can kill with a single bite, and that will crawl across you at night if you don't take the proper precautions. Extreme poverty, famine, horrible dictatorships, man's unthinking inhumanity to man, in every single sense of the term.

In short, the "third world"...in all it's dysfunctional glory.

It was enough to gag a maggot. I wanted to quit and run for home more times than I can remember.

But...oddly enough, after a while...I began to enjoy the challenge. I LIKED being tough enough to outlast all of the other expats that were sent into a new frontier to do a very tough job. (Aussies and Kiwis who worked for the Company were the hardest to outlast...those guys can handle almost ANYTHING)

But I found that I truly loved seeing parts of the world that no tourist ever gets to see (and I enjoyed photographing really bizarre locales, and then showing these pix to my buddies back in Houston). 

It was scary fun. And TOTALLY interesting at the same time. And, if I HATED the place that I was in (and I often did), I only had to tough it out for six or eight months and then I would end up somewhere completely different. Maybe better. Maybe not.

And the paychecks were amazing. (which is not much solace when you are faced with a drunken local draftee with an assault rifle in some banana republic. Or when you get bitten by a lethal snake. Or contract some unnamed tropical disease.)

That was my life. From 1975 to mid 2002, with a few short interruptions.

It was terrible and fascinating at the same time. And I wouldn't trade a single moment of it for anything safe and dull. No way in hell.

And...forgive me for saying this...I happen to think that it gave me a singular perspective on what is real, and what is most definitely NOT real when it comes to political systems. It also gave me a VERY real understanding of what it actually means to live in a country that is ruled by an unelected despot.

I am also pretty sure that I now have a good idea of what the residents of these dictatorships actually THINK about their particular "Supreme Leader" (since they used to TELL me about it on a daily basis. At great length.)

And I seriously doubt if anyone who is living in the safe confines of one of Canada's major cities has any CLUE about the reality of any of this. No matter how many books they read, or how many TV News articles they watch.

Or how many resorts they might visit on their two week vacation each year.

Call it a hunch. 

[ August 24, 2004, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A dictatorship is form of government.
Sovereignity is a concept of international law.
The problem with you is you have no clue as to basic concepts so discussion falls on uneducated ears.

As to "get out more" if you mean get out of town more that seems to be your forte.

If you mean being engaged and seeing for myself, I've spent weeks in the Caribbean building a school with a societal structure so poor we were warned against giving one set of kids a soccer ball as it would cause ill feelings.
And laughed a cried with them as the "American yachts" dropped in for a $4 glass of lime juice and paid the "off island" price for a case of beer.
I didn't pity them, they had a vibrant and laughter filled social life and the race to get the best fish when the conch shell blew left us Canucks panting and gasping.
We were there to help....period. Not to parade our superior form of government.

I spent weeks with CIDA workers in Sierra Leone where walking out side of town dropped you back 4000 years and walking outside period on "devil nights" got you a likely trip home in a coffin.
And I listened to the German automobile businessman complain about the "lack of work ethic".
Yet all around him people built their own homes from mud and wattle, grew their own foods and sustained themselves "in their own style" as they had done for centuries.
Many wanted nothing to do with "western things", some did and hired on to "developers" - coming home lost souls fitting into neither culture comfortably.

I spent weeks in China before and just during it's opening up to see the energy being unleashed as dogma was replaced with pragmatism and even had a hard time finding a copy of Mao's Little Red Book as a souvenir.

I've spent time with my luggage guarded by machine gun and also being hosted and toasted in the best Japanese style where petty theft was non existent but organized crime a major part of society.
And one thing struck me around the world, people as individual humans have more in common than they do differences.
The love their kids, want a peaceful life and value their cultures and customs........and really truly want them respected by others.

It's NOT up to US or U.S. to bring democracy or export values. Peoples and nations have histories and values that they cherish.
It's up to us to respect those values and cultures and aid where we can and where we are wanted.

CIDA not CIA.

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/index-e.htm 

We can offer help, and most important a model for developing nations and peoples. Act as welcome friends, not seen as invaders.

Of all the cultural backgrounds you should understand clearly how unwelcome the "foreigner" can be.
Were the English welcome bringing their notion of societal values to the Highlands???



> Duncan MacQuarrie's forebears were part of the region's long, reluctant transition from medieval feudalism to agrarian capitalism, a change marked by sporadic uprisings against the British crown that ended disastrously for the Highland rebels in 1746.
> 
> Brutal reprisals followed that final rebellion, *the wrath of England's empire builders falling against a people who did not speak their language, did not share their perception of "civilized" society,*





> As an imperial nation, Britain was used to fighting outside of its own borders, and the fact that a so-called* 'ill-equipped, ill-led rabble of barbarians' almost succeeded in taking over the country shook its leadership deep down to its roots.*** Legislation went into effect quickly: the time from the defeat of the Scots until implementation of the first Act was only months. The rule of the Scottish lairds and their absolute control of the Clans had to be broken, and very soon. On August 1st, 1746 the Act of Proscription went into effect. This was the first of the 'Kings laws' bent on breaking the back of the Scottish system of government and independent life


**anything there remind you of today's terrorist???

So Macnutt - were the English "ordained" to bring civilization to the "uncivilized" rabble in Scotland???
Were they wanted??



> The Act of Proscription was closely followed by the Heritable Jurisdictions Act. This new Act forced all Scottish landowners to either accept English jurisdiction or forfeit their lands. All Scottish heritable sherriffdoms reverted to the English crown, and other heritable jurisdictions, including regalities, came under the power of the English court.
> 
> The impact of these Acts on all levels of Scottish society was swift and brutal. Landed peers who participated in the '45 had already lost their territory to the English outright. Now all the remaining lords of the land lost power over their subjects except the rights of landlord. *The English system of law was forced on to the people and nobody could change it.*
> 
> ...


And you wonder why the violence continues to escalate when there are millenia of cultural and religious issues in play in Iraq and the middle east??  

The US and Britain are viewed as oppressors and invaders.

There were Scots that welcomed the English invader and made "deals".
How are they viewed??

ONLY a consensus of the worlds nations under the guise of world bodies and acting within their charter will sometime be effective in curbing abuses WITHIN sovereign nations.

Go it alone efforts simply triggers the same visceral rejection that funds a new SCOTTISH parliament in the 21st Century.
IT'S THEIR COUNTRY, IT'S THEIR CULTURE.

Invader go home.

The US even used the language of empire 'PROCONSUL'  

What does it mean???

(an official in *a modern colony* who has considerable administrative power)

(a provincial governor of consular rank in the Roman Republic and * Roman Empire)*

How MUCH clearer could it be.

Trade, aid, RESPECT.

The middle east and it's people's have their own journey to undertake without malicious meddling by others - there's been far too much of that already leaving a legacy of enduring hatred and suspicion.

More CIDA, less CIA
More fair trade, less lecturing on 'THE WONDERFUL WESTERN WAYS".

Maybe your ancestors welcomed the English with open arms.......might explain your notions of exported civilization.


[ August 24, 2004, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> And the paychecks were amazing.


So, in other words, you took money from oil companies who worked hand in hand with corrupt dictatorships.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nope Ironmac...all of the service companies that I worked for in South and Central America were at least 51% locally owned, even though they were connected to the home office back in Houston. Majority local ownership. That's the rule pretty much everywhere. We did all sorts of lab testing for each government in each country while working out of the locally-owned company office. We tested water, soil, did extensive environmental testing, you name it.

I just happened to be particularly good at finding hydrocarbons where no one thought they might be. So that's what they had me doing. I have never in my life EVER recieved a paycheck from any oil company. I have never owned stock or had any interest in any oil company. Period.

Macdoc....

More laughably naieve comments and mistaken observations from one who admits he has only spent "weeks" in a foreign land.

You haven't a hope of figuring out how life really works in a distant land until you've been living and working there for MONTHS, if not YEARS.

Foreigners, especially those who are there as a part of some government program, are NOT trusted by the locals. Anything any everything they say to you...no matter how offhand...can affect their lives, and the lives of the ones they love. They do NOT trust you enough to put their lives in your hands after a scant few weeks.

Trust me on this.

But don't worry, they'll smile and give you the old "party line" every time. 









Looks like you swallowed, too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_ there as a part of some government program, are NOT trusted by the locals._
No realllllllllllly,







why not take that to heart.......

I wasn't part of any government program. I observed and listened......too bad you don't.

I came away with respect for cultures and sovereignity, you came away with money and imperial swagger  

"NOT trusted by the locals."!!!!!!





















I wonder why


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You listened to what they told you after you had only been there a few weeks. And they told you what you expected to hear, and what was safe for them to tell you... _BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE LEAVING RATHER SHORTLY...And THEY were NOT_. 









I spent YEARS listening and observing and absorbing what everyone told me and showed me and what I saw when I was living overseas. And the people who lived there eventually trusted me because they knew I had no idea when I was going to leave the place, either. (Some places I stayed in for a VERY long time.)

I absorbed the culture, learned the language, set up a household, had relationships in these places. My mailing address was there, not Canada. I had a life there. Not a short vacation.

And it's a vastly different thing from visiting one of these places "for a few weeks". It's enormously different.

So different, you cannot even begin to imagine.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Well this has turned into quite the little pissing contest...  

Mind the wind there boys...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I would tend to agree with Macnutt's statement that "...it's a vastly different thing from visiting one of these places 'for a few weeks'. It's enormously different." Granted, one may live in a country and see only a certain aspect of that country, while still being unaware of the social/economic conditions of the majority of people in that particular country. Still, living in a culture rather than observing it from an outside perspective for a short period of time is one way to gain a more accurate frame of reference.

Just received an interesting email from Horatio Horsefeathers, who is the breeder of the Hounds of Hades, a distinctly devilish breed of dachshund. His email ends as such -- "What have you done???? Hell just froze over!!!!!"

Whatever, Macnutt and I are not always at +/-7 point extremes on all issues. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sorry, duplicate post. 

Still, getting back to the topic of the "bashing of America", it is amazing how much of this is done by those who have never lived in the US. Having been born there, and having lived in various places in different parts of the country, I have a certain perspective. Still, I find it interesting watching the same item/issue discussed on TV stations ranging from Fox, CNN, PBS, NBC/ABC/CBS in the US, and on BBC in England and the CBC here in good old Canada. Same story, but totally different perspectives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here MacNutt
- argue with Buchanan about US foreign policy and how wonderful the current approach is



> Neocon Treason
> by Paul Craig Roberts
> 
> Having experienced the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, do Americans wish they had elected Patrick J. Buchanan president? Was Buchanan America's last chance to put a true patriot in the Oval Office?
> ...


••••

Dr. G - experience without being aware of the history that brings a nation or people to it's current place provides no gauge by which to judge.
Sitting in a bar in Mexico brings no understanding of WHY Vincente Fox decided to risk his relationship with Bush.

One insight gained in travelling was that people as individuals are much the same the world over.
The other that customs and cultures differ wildly - something that can be treated joyously or with suspicion, to be embraced or avoided.

Understanding why tribes cultures and peoples are territorial and resent intrusion - just as you had kids from "foreign blocks" in NY when you were young I'm sure - comes from standing back and looking over time at people's and the roots of conflict.

That can't be experienced as no one lives long enough.
Fortunately we have the legacy of observers to view gain a wider perspective, and thoughtful minds providing insight and analysis that often changes with time.

One can drive a car successfully without the need to understand the fundamentals underneath and visit many shores without understanding the sweep of history and it's impact on the NOW.

Study informs experience and vice versa for a broader and deeper perspective when BOTH are in play.
As a generality Japanese food is gorgeous and Chinese food generous, understanding the roots of that heightens the experience of each.

You've thought long and deep about your experience with the Vietnam war and emigrating to Canada.
It's personal........it's thoughtful, it shows. You have experience AND perspective.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Holy crap - what a morass this is.

YES, let's NOT "bash America". 

But let's not shy away from denouncing greed, fraud, artifice, bullying, manslaughter and tyranny. This is NOT the behaviour of a _people_ or a _country_. Such behaviour can only be attributed to individuals. And those individuals should NOT be exempt from scrutiny. The reason certain _American_ individuals receive so much attention is because they wield the power of the mightiest nation on Earth. A nation with the fully deployed capability of laying waste to the entire planet. So please do not request that debate concerning their character, sanity, intelligence, motives and interests be abandonned. And do not label bearers of ill news "hateful" or "anti-American". We are neither. We are, in fact, the opposite.

Enough.

cheers,


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Very well put, Vacuvox!









I'm totally sick of hearing people denounce critics of the American government as anti-American. That is nothing but pure BS, spoken by those who agree with the current regime in power there.

The United States is a great country, with a democracy that needs to be constantly defended from those who would subvert it, for their own greedy ends. Dissent and criticism of the powerful are grand American traditions and are very *pro-American*. I don't believe that those on this board that criticize the US are doing so because they wish for its downfall, but because they want it to live up to its own ideals.

This is especially important because the US is the most powerful nation on Earth. If there is ever to be justice in this world, then the United States has to become a just and truly democratic place to help lead the world there.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, your point that "...experience without being aware of the history that brings a nation or people to it's current place provides no gauge by which to judge" is an excellent one.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> it is amazing how much of this is done by those who have never lived in the US


What is your point? Are you saying that one has to reside within the geographical borders of the USA in order to understand the political landscape and events that are taking place? I truely hope you aren't because that would have to qualify as one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.  

The notion that because I have something to say about the way in which the current administration is conducting itself within the world arena somehow means that I'm 'bashing' America is absurd. Sounds very much like the exact stance that Israel has with regards to anyone speaking negatively about their policies.  Hmmmmm ...

See this is why I stay away from these threads, they quickly just degrade into the whole, 'well no, YOU said this! And that's wrong!' 

Slouching down in ones chair while wearing thong underwear doesn't work out all that well let me tell you...  They should make kids in school wear them, everyone would have perfect posture!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Well, I just got back from a short holiday and have been catching up on the activities. I see that Macnutt is back in full force (welcome back!) There’s more mud flying around here than at a 4X4 mudfest.  
Frankly, the combatants are losing credibility with this behaviour. I would respectfully suggest that any among us who feels he/she knows it all and has the correct perspective on all the world’s problems should run for politics. Once in Parliament, you can yell, hurl insults, get little accomplished and get paid for it. 
Freedom of thought, speech and expression are supposed to be what sets the “free world” apart from the countries you are "discussing". You guys are attempting to intimidate each other into suppression. 
Nice going!…you must be feeling proud.  
This should get me dumped on for sticking my nose into a fight. Help me Dr. G!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Well said Peter. This thread lately wreaks of arrogance and ignorance. Any one who claims to have seen it all or to know better than anyone else ultimately has only themselves for an audience. Arrogance is dangerous when its associated with power, otherwise it's pitiful. We're here to learn, listen and debate, not prance around like pompous asses.

I know something but what I know is far closer to nothing than to everything. We are humbled by realizing how much we actually don't know.

Oops, Confuscious mode off......


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I must confess that I am tiring slightly of all this. I am also tired of the constant Bush-bashing and anti-American sentiment that I hear all the time around here.

Which is why I jumped into this fight with Claymore a-swingin.

I happen to like the USA quite rather a lot...I HAVE lived and worked there for quite a period of my life, BTW...and it pi**es me off no end when I hear imbecilic comments about my friends to the south.

Love em or hate em, they are the reason that we enjoy living as well as we do today. We would be lost without them.

Criticism is one thing. Outright and constant bashing is another. (especially coming from a country where the whole damn government is currently under investigation for massive fraud and corruption on a biblical scale!)

Once and for all....ENOUGH AMERICA BASHING!

My final post on this thread.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> (especially coming from a country where the whole damn government is currently under investigation for massive fraud and corruption on a biblical scale!)


Well see that's kind of the Canadian way as I see it for the most part, sit back fire off about the 'other' guys, and what they are doing but when it comes to our own 'mess' that is the Federal Government people seem to revert back into 'sheep' mode. Oh there is some polite raising of voices, and a bit of name calling but nothing on the scale of what gets fired off at say the US. It would be nice to see people get as vocal with the same level of disgust and out right hosility towards the theives and criminals that occupy our own governmental seats.  

I still stick with my statement that one doesn't need to live somewhere to understand what is going on politically, and make observations on it. I for one have nothing against 'Mericans as a people, I feel sorry for them at this point in history they are faced with an absolutely horrible choice....Bush / Kerry??? What a choice that would be to have to make. They're in the crapper either way. Then again look at the choices we had to choose from here...Wow talk about the 'cream of the crap'....I mean cro...


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

I think we may be a little over the top in that reaction. 
Sure, we have our problems, but I think our controversy pales in comparison to what the American government is experiencing on the world stage. (Please note that I said government, not Americans)  
Let's compare apples to apples if we're going to get our shorts knotted up. That's not to say we should be complacent with oiur government's shortcomings...let's just keep overall perspective of the degree of seriousness. Our problems are not of "biblical proportions", but what the US is doing certainly could be, IMHO


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Holy sh*t!!
Didn't this thread die in a hurry??!!
Just as well.....it's been beaten to death and points have been made ad nauseum. Besides, Macnutt has politely bowed out of the fray so the human whipping post is gone. He sure knows how to stir the rabble into a frenzie.  I can't help but like his gutsy style. There goes tonight's entertainment, but that's OK, ....it was pretty rude lately.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Peter, like I said when I started this thread:

ENOUGH!

Cheers


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

...and like I said when I first answered it, "it'll be a long one"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ENOUGH!

For the very last time...ENOUGH!!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macnutt previously asserted,


> *My final post on this thread.*


You lied!!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> macnutt previously asserted,
> quote:
> My final post on this thread.
> You lied!!


No. He adjusted his answer.
 

"Don't do as I do. Do as I say."


----------

