# The plot thickens...sorta crudely



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The New York City News was claiming gasoline at the pumps was due to rise dramatically after the new year.

Bush and Co trying a new way to pay for their adventures??


----------



## Jazzboy (May 14, 2003)

Consider the source ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Spoken like a true journalist Jazzboy!


----------



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

Macdoc, exactly what is the source? I may stand corrected, but I don't recall any newspaper, if this is the source, called the "New York City News". There is the New York Daily News, the New York Post, the New York Times and Newsday in NYC on a daily basis with wide circulation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well Dr. G neither do I it was simply on a nightly newscast from New York City so I'm also puzzled as to the cryptic reference about source.

That's why I asked if anyone had any details.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

yes it will go up. 
yes it will go down.
which - when?

As soon as anyone, nation, or cartel has significant control of oil supply, production drops and the price rises. As control slips, production rises and the price drops. If you are controlling the market, a price rise is obviously in your favour - otherwise it is economically detrimental.

The current price battle is being waged in Iraq. If America manages to stabilize and control the oil resources in Iraq, they will have a significant share of total productive world oil reserves and therefore be better able to influence world oil production - and price - in its favour.

They have to ask themselves - has it all been worth it? 

And also - just how many "economic unions" might be interested in sabotaging the BushAdmin's efforts to bring Iraqi oil to market under American control?

Is it delusional to speculate that we have a little world war going on right under our noses?


----------



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

Macdoc, my misunderstanding. With the "N" in News, rather than a "n", it sounded like a newspaper. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gentlemen,

Knowing a thing or two about newspapers, I decided to do some research to see if I could come up with the missing article being referred to in the first post.

I think I have found an item that would qualify and you can read it here.

Always giving, never taking . . .

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's like 13 cents a litre - no wonder they are upset. 
Now THAT might make a few SUV owners think twice.
Thanks Sinc  

"NEW YORK -- A new report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) warns that gasoline prices in New York and Connecticut could surge 40 cents a gallon after a January 1, 2004, ban of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) takes effect.

Effective January 1, 2004, under laws passed several years ago by the state legislatures, all motor fuel sold in New York and Connecticut must be virtually free of MTBE, a synthetic chemical which is added to gasoline as an oxygenate in order to meet air-quality standards. MTBE-blended gasoline already has been banished in most of California and several other states.

EIA's 35-page report notes that, "If the price impacts seen during major fuel transitions in California and Chicago/Milwaukee are any indication, price spikes as large as 30-40 cents a gallon could occur" once the ban takes effect."
.....more on the link above


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Although this particular story is news, I am quite familiar with MTBE and it's manufacturer, Methanix of Vancouver, BC.
This product has been banned in many states, and in Canada, because it's a known carcinogen. But wait, there's more ...

Ethyl Corp (New Jersey) sued Canada under NAFTA provisions that allow private companies to sue a government for damages from actions that cost them money.

In Ethyls case, it was for "damage to reputation". It was big news, because they were the first company to test this particular NAFTA provision.

The lawsuit was related to another gasoline additve and a known carcinogen, MMT, which Canada had banned before there ever was a NAFTA for health and envoirnmental reasons.

They won, and Canada had to both:
Pay them a bunch of cash, ($US 251 Million) and;
Cannot ban MMT for any reason, ever. It's in most Canadian premium gasoline (because it's the cheapest octane-boosting additve after Lead).

It also destroys Catalytic Converters, and all auto manufacturers have been trying, unsucessfully, to help Canada find some way to ban it that doesn't trigger a NAFTA trade remedy action. They can't.

Ethyl Corp is also the company that privided Ethyl Lead to refineries for about 50 years.

Methanix, who obviously read the papers, are currently using the same provisions of NAFTA to sue the US Federal Government regarding the State of California and it's ban of MBTE ($US 970 million).

There is also a current $100 Million lawsuit against Canada by Compton Corp (US) for our attempt at banning of a pesticide used for "treated seed" which prevents pest infestations for seeds intended for next summer's crop planting; in this case it's used on Canola seeds.

Lindane is not registered for use in the US and the US can use Lindane-treated seed as a non-tarrif barrier to stop Canadian imports of Canola.

These particular tribunals are held in secret, and cannot be appealed.

[ December 05, 2003, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Ok I think everyone will agree - its time to stop buying gas.

Bill Bryson claims that because of leaded gas, we each have at least 260 times the amount of lead in our bodies than people did prior to 1950 (probably true for all other animals too). But we're much better off than the employees engaged in producing the stuff - many of whom succumbed horribly. 

And... get this... the same guy who invented leaded gas also invented CFCs. How helpful. He was mercifully stricken down by polio which paralyzed him - and inspired him to invent an articulated electronic bed. The bed malfunctioned and, rather poetically, smothered him to death. About time too.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

At the time CFCs were invented and put into use did they even know we had an ozone layer and that it was being damaged? I'd say that if you wanted to get angry at someone over them, get angry at the companies that failed to stop using CFCs once they were established as harmful.

The guy who invented the stuff was probably just doing his job, and last time I checked doing your job wasn't a good enough reason for people to be glad when you are dead.

--PB


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

> Bill Bryson claims that because of leaded gas, we each have at least 260 times the amount of lead in our bodies than people did prior to 1950 (probably true for all other animals too)


Baloney! I do several thousand lead level tests per week in my medical lab. I see the results and I can tell you that the average person has virtually no lead in their blood system.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"The guy who invented the stuff was probably just doing his job,"

Hmmm heard the same refrain at Nuremburg.

" last time I checked doing your job wasn't a good enough reason for people to be glad when you are dead."

Well you might want to check with a few victims of people "just doing their jobs".

It may well be true in this case tho the outcome for the gentleman in question is truly ironic.

But it points to lack of oversight - hey they used to spray DDT around too.

There was/is a controversy about whistle blowers in the science community in places overseeeing testing being put in conflict by their employers when they discover an aspect of their testing not to the liking of the companies that are having their compounds tested.
I think it was human growth hormone for cows that triggered a scandal of that sort in Canada.

It's this kind of activity, carcinogens for profit" by the "land of the free and the home of the brave" that disgusts me about their litigatious and greedy society.  

You know the US is one long tale of horror from it's guerilla war of independence, slavery, aboriginal genocide, adventurism and territorial theft, civil war, civil rights, defeating the League of Nations effort, MaCarthyism, failing to pay the UN, Vietnam, The Seven Dwarves, World Court, global warming the middle east and untold other economic and cultural horrors unleashed upon it's own citizens and the world.

Y'know once in a while a solid kernel of truth has to reside in propaganda and the concept the middle east holds of the US as the "great Satan" holds more than a kernel - perhaps a mountain of truth.  

Situations like those Gord outlined are just plain disgusting and indicative of the hypocrisy of the US in it's dealing with others....and even it's own citizens


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

"I do several thousand lead level tests per week in my medical lab [snip] and I can tell you that the average person has virtually no lead in their blood system."

You're right, Adagio, and thank goodness - or I think we would all be rather ill.  The point is, the tiny bit that we HAVE absorbed is a couple of decimal places to the left of what was typical 75 years ago. And if Clair Patterson hadn't spent his entire life campaigning against the use of lead in gasoline, we would all be several more decimal points closer to decrepitude, insanity and death.

And, Poster Boy, yes - it is perhaps mean spirited to rejoice over the death of someone who was just "doing their job". He didn't live long enough to learn that his CFCs were eating atmospheric ozone and endangering life as we know it. However, it is remarkable that one person would be resonsible for developing two global catastrophies. And I wouldn't be hateful if his record with leaded gasoline painted the picture of a humanitarian. But it does not.

In 1921, when Thomas Midgley invented leaded gas, lead was a well known dangerous neurotoxin. The hazards of leaded gas also became alarmingly clear early on. The inventor himself became seriously afflicted at one point and made a policy of never venturing near the stuff again if he could help it. The only exception he made, when necessary (usually after some workers became ill or died), was to stage agent-orange-type demonstrations (dipping his hands in and sniffing ethyl gas) for reporters to "prove" its harmlessness.

The Ethyl Corp (an offspring of GM, DuPont and Standard Oil) employees who worked in manufacturing leaded gasoline suffered horribly and Ethyl Corporation routinely covered this up. At one facility, one week of poor ventilation killed 5 employees and turned another 35 into permanent staggering wrecks. When asked about 15 employees at another plant who had developed irreversable delusions, a spokesman blandly replied "These men probably went insane because they worked too hard".


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - You can't compare the guy who made CFCs with the Nazis.

The guy who made CFCs was doing his job, and they did not know the long term effects. Just look at DDT, smoking or a slew of other products that have been made that were found years later to be harmful.

The Nazis knew what they were doing, the guy who made CFCs was doing his job, finding a new chemical to do a purpose. And when it was made, the public perception of environmentalism and protecting the ozone was a heck of a lot less then now.

And if everything you said in that post about the States is to be believed, the States has done no good ever. They sure as heck aren't perfect, but the States isn't the reason for everything that goes bad in the world.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

While the merits of leaded gasoline were debatable even when Midgley invented it, I don't think the same could be said for CFCs. 

Before CFCs, refrigerators used toxic or flammable substances (such as ammonia or sulphur dioxide); people were often poisoned by leaking refrigerators, or killed when their refrigerators exploded. CFCs were considered wonder chemicals since they worked well in refrigerators, yet were non-toxic and non-flammable. Of course, they also thin the ozone layer, but that fact wasn't discovered until the 1970s. 

So, while he's probably had more of an effect on the atmosphere than any other single organism, I don't think he acted out of malice. Comparing him to the Nazis or reveling in his death is just in poor taste.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion
You misconstrue my comment.
I was commenting on the "just doing my job" justification put forth by Posterboy.
Every German beneath Hitler was "just doing their job".
Tobacco scientists, just doing their job.

ITS NOT A CARTE BLANC FOR MAYHEM and companies and individuals are accountable despite the very best of intentions...witness the forced withdrawl of the Red Cross from blood services..

If you are idly swinging a lead pipe in crowd and accidentally kill someone you will be tried for manslaughter if not murder even without intent.

The point of my comment was that those kind of "just doing my job" excuses are worthless exercises and smack of the same reasoning that was rampant at Nuremburg. 
The CFC inventor didn't make that statement PosterBoy did....and I took HIM to task for the statement.

••
On the US end, it's the incredible hypocracy of their "holier than thou" anointed destiny stance that conflicts so with their actual bloody history and inflicted ills like those delineated above with regards to carginogens for profit.

If outrageous acts are commited and the party when asked why says "Because I can", that party is being one hell of a lot more honest than saying "well it was for they're own good".
See the difference.
Better an honest -" because we need to secure the oil"
rather than "free the Iraqi's"

Empires do what they do because they can. Napolean, Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, Cecil Rhodes others throughout history gloried in that.
But they didn't hide behind the "white hat" selfless, noble hero that the current US regime want to promulgate as the reasons for their actions.

There is so little difference between many of Germany's specious "reasons" for moving on their neighbors and US's current adventurism that it's scaring the hell out of the world. Why is that so hard to accept given the US history.

"National security" - 
Lebensraum
Sphere of influence

You tell me the difference given the actions of the US under the current regime.
No the US is not responsible for the ills of the world but they are responsible for many and with great power comes greater responsibilty.

In the eyes of billions around the world that power is not and has not been used responsibly and in particular lately has been used recklessly.

Why is it so hard to accept the view that billions of people share that George Bush and his regime are a tremendous and ongoing danger to the human community.

[ December 05, 2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

When did I make the "just doing my job" justification? You are aware that PosterBoy and I are different people, right?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry you are right PB - edit coming up.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks macspectrum!


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Ok - well, I guess I'm a tasteless beanhead. 

I still maintain that Midgley and Ethyl Corp operated with the full knowledge that their "ethyl" product was poinsonous and caused untold human and animal suffering.

The fact that the bad news on CFCs took 50 years to become evident doesn't quite let him off the hook. No, he didn't know CFCs were dangerous. But he DID know ethyl was dangerous and he denied it while his employees went insane and died. Maybe its a stretch to think he would have denied the danger of CFCs too if he had lived long enough.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... But it points to lack of oversight - hey they used to spray DDT around too ... "

They didn't just "spray it around". They used it indiscriminately, at doseage levels thousands, and hundreds of thousands of times higher than necessary, for every little thing, and then we repeated it the next week or month. The sight of a single bug was enough to call for a massive application.

DDT is not the story of a lethal chemical gone wild. It's the story of the safest, most effective pesticide ever made, abused to the point where we had no choice but to ban it's use.

It is not appropirate for crop spraying. It is not appropriate for home application. It is not appropriate for widespread, undiciplined application at 100,000 or more times the level required to kill a mosquito or flea.

But that's what we did.

Now, we use far more dangerous chemicals, neurotoxic to mamals, because we blew it with DDT.

There is one single human death associated with DDT. A hermit bachelor mistook it for an ingredient he used in pankake mix. Nobody knows how much he ate, but it's safe to assume it was pounds of the stuff, over a period of months and perhaps years. (He used a large sack of it found abandoned by the miliatry in Italy). He died years later.

It is the safest, most effective vermicide ever invented. It saved 10 million lives in Italy alone during WWII by preventing cholera, plague and other diseases in massively devastated cites; and countless lives of military personnel.

If you Dad or Grampa was a Canadian soldier during WWII, I guarantee he powedered himself with it at least 40 times. He was able to come home and raise you because of it.

It could eliminate malaria worldwide. But we can't use it, because we decided that every time someone in Chicago or Toronto saw a mosquito during the family barbeque, we phoned the city and the city sprayed the whole neighborhood with clouds of the stuff. People with no training in pesticide application ("It's so safe, you don't need training!") threw it about like pixie dust.

Everything is lethal in a dose. Apparently the dose for DDT was a weekly application in every inch of North America, for 25 years.

Even then the effects were subtle, and took a very long time to identify the reason birds were affected (it thinned the shells of eggs, so that they were fragile. Species like Eagles, that have a hard time getting 1 of 3 young to survive over a 1-2 year nesting period, were affected to the point where a slow population decline began).

There is no way we could have created those enviornmental levels without wild, irresponsible abuse of the chemical.

Now, we can't even consider it's use. Nobody trusts it, which is another way of saying we don't trust ourselves with it.

We are real morons sometimes, I can't think of a better word.

[ December 06, 2003, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - The Nazis under Hitler knew what was happening. When you don't the possible side effects that occurs years later, you can't be compared. The Nazis knew what was happening, they may have believed in it, but they knew what was happening. The guy who made CFCs didn't.

If not for the US, where would Canada be today? Although their decisions haven't been the best, and someone is always pissed off about no matter what they do (that includes nothing), if they hadn't made those decisions, we wouldn't be here today. You can't change the past.

Who is to say that the reason to invade Iraq wasn't to free the Iraqis? Oil, influence and the removal of a despot could be seen as collateral damage (though good in this case.) Or you could mix those up. But in the end there were many reasons to invade Iraq, most behind the scenes.

You said "All empires do what they do because they can.", if they didn't who is to say they wouldn't have collapsed? The only way to stay alive is to grow, if you leave your empire to stagnate it will wither and die. For them, it was a matter of nationalism or the need for the country to exert influence to keep themselves alive. Are you saying that every country should do nothing, and stagnate? Society is a constant battle of showing dominance.

Such dominance could be shown in our economy. A business could be seen as ripping off the consumer by making a profit so they can pay themselves. We know that profit is required in order for the economy to sustain itself, but using the logic as I understand it you have put forth for the imperialistic actions of England and the United States, it is simply a larger version of our economy. There is disparity among people, nations, and regions.

The States needs a white hat image now, as the old "stop the spread of communism", or a need to ensure the economic sustainability of a nation isn't a motivating factor anymore. 

What the US is doing is not lebensraum, lebensraum means living room, and the US doesn't need living room, it needs economic allies. Germany expanded not to control countries but to assimilate them and bring the German people together again.

The US's sphere of influence is more comparable to clout then the willful terrorizing and take over of other nations. The Nazi's assimilated the countries they took over before World War 2, but the US is not assimilating any of the "colonies" it has established. No more then say England had control over Canada after the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

George Bush and his government may not be more of threat then what they have squashed, and we will never know. People complain when the police stop a crime from happening, since they don't know it was going to happen. The US has a very large intelligence service (both the NSA and CIA) and many black ops programs. It is highly likely there were many things that happen behind the scenes to protect the peace found in the west.

vacuvox - There is no excuse when you know that the product you sell is dangerous. That is why there are government regulations, but unfortunatly those are often circumvented.

gordguide - Very well put, now lets just hope that antibiotics go the same way. We can get into a lot of trouble that way.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"

Chealion








"Society is a constant battle of showing dominance."

Chealion if you beleive that then indeed the US is an admirable society and likely nothing I can say will change your viewpoint.....

If you were in the National Guard at Kent State University on May 4th 1970 would you have "done your job" and "shown your dominance" in the eternal struggle.










This IS what the danger is all about.
Could that have been you on the ground?....or pointing the rifle?

Checks and balances - the US has little check on it's power.

Billions of people world wide understand that the US' projection of power, whether economic, military or cultural is exceedingly dangerous under this regime.
If you are open to understanding this
http://www.soros.org/

We have checks and balances and oversight in governments and economies to guard against abuse of power.
The current Presidency, under the guise of national security, has eliminated or abused many of the checks and balances both internally and in the world community.

As for the US record - ask Cuba Mark sometime about the "willful terrorizing and destabilizing".
You are welcome to like and admire and venerate the US but personally I prefer Canada's approach to the world community.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to scratch that pretty white US hat for evidence of whitewash or even better, probe deeper for some slight evidence of subcutaenous keratin bumps around the temples underneath.  

This is and interesting look by a "peaceable people" who themselves have had difficulty dealing with the nature of US society while living with in it.
His analysis of the veneration of the Aborginal warrior in US education over the peacemakers is revealing and speaks exactly to the point here. 
US culture is, and has been, a violent one and is particularly dangerous now. 

http://www.bethelks.edu/mennonitelife/2001dec/juhnke.php

There ARE other ways, other views. Canadians have some.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Interesting points everyone. This argument is getting pretty difuse. Where did it all start? - A projected gas price-hike in NY?

GG - I never knew DDT ever held the promise of being the safest of all pesticides. That's really interesting. I've only ever seen it vilified as the cause of ecological disaster. I guess that's what happens if you don't do your reading. It's only natural our total abuse of the substance was the problem - not necessarily the substance itself. How retrospectively and depressingly predictable! Are we, as a group, incapable of moderation? Do you think we're capable of striving for the optimal rather than the greatest or least? Let's hope so. Hey, that would be optimism!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's why they are threads - you never know what the weave holds or where it will lead.  

You make a good point - Thalidomide was put n the shelf for decades yet is turning out to be very effective for certain medical issues - public perception can indeed be a force.


----------



## Livingroom (May 11, 2003)

If anybody's still reading I'll add my 2 cents. Many of the issues here from oil gouging to CFCs and lead reflect one common problem. In my opinion big companies have gotten so good at making and keeping their money ans so good at lobbying and buying politicians sworn to serve the public that they can never be held responsible for their actions. They choose money over peoples lives or quality of life. Spin doctors keep people spinning and distracted from the real story and sadly people are too easily distracted.

Insert soapbox here!

Lerts face it most middle managers can only justiy their salaries by making more money for the companies. (Not their fault but that is how the system seems to work) Thousands and thousands of emplyees working just to imake the bottom line look better has led to point where greedy ceos etc. can pillage the companies for outrageous salaries where the majority of many companies employes cant afford basic health insurance. ( US example buts lace face it Canada is the exception sady not the rule.) Give Mike Harris a chance ( as PM) and we will have HMOs like the states in no time. 

I have worked for big companies and small and at the bottom people care about the quality of work they do and their products. The problem lies in the fact I think that companies have gotten too big and are just money making machines with so little connection to what ever they do for that money.

Big business shouldn't be the enemy but while government reflects what business needs over the quality of life of all of the people it seems like the best target. 
The organization of business in protecting itself and deflecting blame is amazing. A few corrupt ceos in the can is not enough but a thorough overhaul of how the man in the street effects big business.
The answer? 

Make politicians responsible personaly for corrupt decisions even after they are out opf office might be a good start. 
Suggestions?
Thanks for reading this rant


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Livingroom: 
Very well said!
And furthermore... I agree whole-heartedly.
cheers


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

nothing more to add

[ December 06, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

You took me to task? Sorry, I missed it.

Thing is, he was doing his job! They were looking for a replacement for the highly toxic/dangerous chemicals in refrigerators. One of the guys charged with doing so eventually came up with CFCs. They were non toxic, and refrigerators didn't (occasionally) explode[1] anymore. It wasn't until about 50 years later that their adverse effects on the ozone layer were discovered. 

He did his job, he replaced toxic/flammable chemicals (Ammonia/Sulphur Dioxide) with something that was not toxic or flammable. It's not like he set out with the intention of destroying the ozone layer, and revelling in his death for an act he didn't know was harmful (were they even aware of the ozone layer in the 1920s?) is in poor taste. This was the point I was making. Sorry if you missed it.

And while I am here I would just like to know something. Do you hate the US? Are you aware that Canada, in a lot of ways, is just as bad or worse than the US?

Just wondering.

--PB

[1] It wasn't an insignificant number either, lots of people were injured or killed when their fridges exploded.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - I think I didn't make my point very clear, so you misunderstood what I was driving at.

Whether you like it or not, dominance is in everything. Most often only on a subconscious level. A crude example would be racism, there are some people who just naturally feel superior over other because of the color of their skin. Is this right by today's societal standards? No. But it still happens.

I'm not here to defend the United States, as they have done a great deal of misdeeds, along with a great deal of good deeds. The good is always forgotten easily, while the mistakes are held forever. And like it or not, the US is top dog, and if they collapse we're in serious trouble.

I was reading this week's Time(Canadian Edition) and I found it had some really good articles on the imprisonment of possible terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, the differing opinions among the Iraqis, and more importantly a great article on Bush himself and what he has done. Especially with the article as evidence it is save to say that people love George W. Bush. (This article, unlike the others is available on their website.)

Love him, or Love to Hate Him that is.

Though I'm not sure Canada's perception on dealing with the international community is that great anymore. Our military should have collapsed already due to budget cuts, we can't protect our own citizens or get them out of foreign jails (Arar case for example), and we stand by and wine and dine with despots. (Jean Chrietien visiting Slobodan Milosevich during the ethnic cleansing, and you can't tell me he couldn't have known about it.) Milosevich brought it up at his war crimes tribunal too, and tried to shift blame onto the other countries. Although he is to blame, like plight of the Jews, and the symbolic voyage of the S.S St. Louis, do we not hold some responsibility for helping out others? Or are we supposed to only give enough foreign aid to keep the poor countries poor and working for us?

The world through my limited experience can be described as complexly simple. The deeper you dig, the more complex it comes, but when looking at the big picture, the simpler it becomes.

Back more on topic;
LivingRoom - That sounds quite good. It is unfortunate that people can be so corrupted by power and money. 

My final point, most particularly about the US, is that every story has at least two sides. We will never know that if the US hadn't done what they did if it would be worse.

A scene from a TV show called FB Eye that my sister watches fits it quite well when the FBI were attempting to shut down a rally due to an active terrorist threat. The FBI was able to stop the threat, and were still lambasted in the paper about limiting free speech by the professor who was leading the rally. The FBI's actions were damned if we stop the threat, and even more damned if we don't. They don't bother to inform the public of the large threat that was stopped, as its easier for the public to believe they are safe and avoid paranoia.

Until someone can attain a working utopia, (I guarantee that it won't happen.) there will always be problems. There is never an excuse for what happens, but it has happened, and it can't be changed. Try and make the best of it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Posterboy I generally detest much of US culture and no I don't believe Canada is without warts either.
There are many admirable citizens of the US but their political culture for one and military culture for another leaves one with a bad taste.
If you've watched or read 13 Days it's a good example of the military mindset.
Now that has changed sidnificantly since Vietnam and quite frankly there is much to admire about the US military capabilities especially when given a clear military objective like that of Kuwait. Move an invading force out.
The book by the leader of the Air strike force in the first Gulf War is excellent on the change in the military.

This force is horrible tho as any sort of policing or nation building support as they have not got the training and are handicapped by widespread dislike if not hatred.

In the current situation I along with many others in the world, both at the citizen and the national level perceive the Bush regime - with it's laughable mandate of + or - a few hundred votes - as a danger to the world and within it's own borders to a hard won tradition of an open society.
Michael Moore only emphasized that in his shock in visiting Toronto.
Canadians are not in a state of fear. The the current regime in the US has exploited a minor threat that has far less impact on their citizens than many of their policies ( like the issue outlined here with additives ) to institute an agenda of security and restrictive policies both at home and abroad that is totally out of proportion to the risks.

Of course Canada has work to do in creating a better society for all it's citizens especially first nations, in removing corruption and incompetence at all levels of government. 
Canada is NOT, however, a threat to the world and in many "hearts and minds" is admirable in it's acceptance and celebration of multicultural diversity. We can do better in "exporting" what we've learned, using our experience and example to gain the trust and confidence of conflicted people's abroad who fear and often loathe the US.
It's really clear to American's like Michael Moore coming here the difference, is it not to you.

••


Chealion....In "A Beautiful Mind" there is an interesting scene in a bar when John Nash realizes "Adam Smith was wrong".
He went on to win the Nobel prize for that insight and we are just beginning to see the results in how the world can work cooperatively in many situations where competition or "dominance" is destructive.
In another post on ehMac the the concept of working with "peoples" as a method of approaching a more peaceable world as opposed to nation states was discussed.
A people with shared values tend to thrive and do so because of cooperative efforts.
It is generally built into us as we are social animals, competing and sharing is "built in".

Here's a good essay on it that outlines in particular why the "idea" of cooperation as a methodology is critical.

" I liked the idea of linking the concept of 'freedom' to the debate
about competition. In his book The Intelligence Advantage Michael
Mcmaster devotes a whole chapter to the question of freedom and I
like his operational definition (BTW - one of the things I really
liked about the book is the way in which Michael includes
operational definitions for all the key words/phrases...) for
freedom he gives .."that condition in which the agents in a
social system are unrestrained in their ability to act except by
rules, or principles that apply to the organisation of the system
as a whole" Michael observes that freedom is important for
creativity, innovation, expression, initiative, application of
energy and intelligence... and I can see some of the principles of
for intrinsic motivation are linked to this concept - linking 
peoples ability to contribute to the ways in which they have been
suppressed... we form, and are formed, by the systems which we
inhabit - so we tend to organise around the values of the system
around us.. 

If we are to have a theory of organisation without the sort of
'controls' which were predominant in the machine model of systems
then freedom of some form seems to be key. So is competition or
cooperation freedom?? 

Competition could be thought of a a form of organising - a freedom
which patterns our behaviour - the more forms of competition we
experience the more it patterns our thinking....it can also be
thought of as a form of management control - limiting our options
....structuring the patterns of our behaviour to produce certain
results (Best Dressed/Most Innovative etc..) 

If we define competition as any form of thinking paterns which
produces a result whereby one party 'wins' and the other(s)
'loses' then I struggle to think of a way in which this can be
thought of as 'healthy' in our organisations... it is a form of
freedom but it is also a trap ... where else does it take me in
terms of how I view the people around me?? It gives us the
freedom to create to win - it might restrict the flows of
information between me and my competitors... at the end of the day
winning is what matters and winning can be a tyranny worse than
other controls.. 

By this model I would define cooperation as any form of thinking
pattern which produces a result whereby any parties involved
'win'.. and there are no losers... thus I can never be a loser and
I do not end up thinking of anyone around me as a loser... it is
more than a question of sub-optimization it is a whole
psychological pattern for me.... it is a different form of freedom
producing different patterns - seeking partnerships we open the
possibility for synergy, working at partnering we build
opportnities for team learning and dialogue creating new
meaning... in finding a win for others we open a window for
innovative ways forward for ourselves... it is also a burden in
terms of the work needed to maintain informations flows and invest
in relationships... 

I am not sure if we 'need' competition or it is just highly
patterned into our thinking and we have not developed new patterns
- I find that when faced with a variety of situations the
cooperative options seem to be very different from the competitive
ones - in thinking about organisaitonal design (and
transformation) I am inclined to think that developing cooperative
models across as many situations as possible is likely to lead to
more effective systems... and pattern our thinking in new ways
which might just give us something we had never imagined would be
possible with competition "

Fundamentally I believe Canadians - for example our health care system - are on a more advanced and safer for the world path than the US because we tend to cooperate rather than compete.

This is not to deny the value of competition but rather to not idolize it as the ultimate driving force. It's one force amongst many and right now the world's people's need cooperation more than ever.
That's not Bush's style.
Hence the danger I see, others see.

••••
BTW Chealion "wining and dining with a despot" - in the case of soveriegn nations the only way to engage change is to OFFER alternatives rather than DEMAND them.
By offering Canadian experience in deal in with two "peoples" the influence there may be far greater and more productive than threats which tend to solidify positions.
Sure there are madmen in power, one I happen to believe is in power in the US right now, but national sovereignity is a critical value until a fully functional UN can evolve.
The US is hated because they have little respect for the concept. ( long list - see Cuba Mark )

When as a representative of your country you are dealing with a sovereign power then despite the dislike of the regime you can only influence and influence is often gained by "wining and dining' not chastising.

[ December 07, 2003, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As I was saying there are those that percieve the American approach as perhaps not so ideal- Doonebury nails it again  

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/ 










Couldn't display the link


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Canada is NOT, however, a threat to the world and in many "hearts and minds" is admirable in it's acceptance and celebration of multicultural diversity.*

You are aware that parts of Ontario were segregated right up until the 60s right? And you do know about the Vancouver Race Riots, right? It is only fairly recently that the people of Canada started 'celebrating our diversity'.

*It's really clear to American's like Michael Moore coming here the difference, is it not to you.*

I am just going to guess that you meant to say "The difference is clear to Americans who've visited here, such as Michael Moore, is it not to you?" Am I close? Maybe you could proof read your posts a little closer, some of the sentences don't make much sense.

You would note that I never said the US is perfect, I just asked if you hate them. Please don't presume to know what I think when I ask a question.

--PB


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"You are aware that parts of Ontario were segregated right up until the 60s right? And you do know about the Vancouver Race Riots, right? It is only fairly recently that the people of Canada started 'celebrating our diversity'.
"
I lived next door to race riots in the 50s.
We ARE discussing the "current" view as it's the Bush regime at the heart of this so I fail to see any point here other than some nations progress faster than others.

••
I asked YOU a question, I didn't presume a thing.

While the structure is awkward YOU understood the Michael Moore line and I'm sure others did as well.

I do write elliptically - always have always will. 

[ December 07, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*We ARE discussing the "current" view as it's the Bush regime at the heart of this so I fail to see any point here other than some nations progress faster than others.*

I think you are missing the point, I am suggesting that Canada has not progressed as far or as fast as many seem to think.

*I asked YOU a question, I didn't presume a thing. While the structure is awkward YOU undestood the Michael Moore line and I'm sure others did as well. *

I asked if you hate the US and you proceeded to respond with a diatribe and then asked if I can't see the difference; sounds pretty presumptuous to me.

You're right, some others probably could understand what you meant. But it'd be nice if _everyone_ could understand without having to re-read it.

--PB


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What do race riots in Ontario in the 60s have to do with the current view of Canada








••
Presuming what?? I asked you a question what does that have to do with presumption.
My response to your question was hardly a diatribe - I pointed out the military mindset had changed in the US but that the political direction of the current regime is dangerous - how is that a diatribe.

As to "re-read" - you figured it out - others will too.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - The human mind is inherently good, at the same time as being inherently bad or flawed.

You said "we are just beginning to see the results in how the world can work cooperatively in many situations where competition or "dominance" is destructive." I have to argue that point. We are not just beginning to see the results, as its apparent as far back as we can go, that when people can work together productively, great things can be accomplished. But we must also remember that we are talking about humans, who have their own petty squabbles. People have pet peeves, and the stupidest things can set people off. How people interact is extremely diverse. It was people, who created the Holocaust, it was people who created the seven wonders of the world.

The excerpt, is unsure if we need competition, but since he admits that competition is hard wired into us, competition can be used advantageously just as much as it can be used to someone's detriment. Everything is like a piece of dynamite, useful or lethal, all depends on usage.

Co-operation and the nice diplomatic way of handling disputes works well most of the time, but sometimes it serves to our detriment (Neville Chamberlain & just before World War 2) and other times, it is required that someone take a hard nosed approach. If this wasn't the case, why is there a War Measures Act? (I believe the name has been changed recently, but I'm not sure.) The War Measures Act here in Canada, was designed in order to take quick, speedy action to stabilize the country by suspending temporarily, the rights of Canadian Citizens. Just like anything else, it can be abused, but if not for the quick, speedy action, who knows what could have happened?

Yes, the Japanese Interment was proof of the War Measures Act gone awry, (although it was chiefly fed by public fear, not rational through) but had the WMA not been enacted for the FLQ crisis, who is to say that the problem could have come to a quick and less bloody end?

There are times when hardnosed action must take place, and whether it was right or not, can be debated after the fact. The people who have to make the decisions aren't making it just because, they have info, and reason to do what they do. (Although the US hasn't been so keen to show conclusive evidence about why they should have invaded Iraq.) We will never know whether or not if Bush hadn't taken this action it would of resulted in another conflict. Not comparable to World War 2, but comparable to how the Western allies, kept bending over backwards for Hitler in order to keep peace.

Although wining and dining with a despot to offer alternatives only goes so far. If you offer alternatives, and the despot increases the rate of ethnic cleansing, how is being congenial a good thing? "All it takes is good men to stand by for evil to win" comes to mind. Negotiations are only half the deal, if you won't back them up and draw a line in the sand to stop the needless blood bath.

macdoc, in your last post before this one, you say the race riots have nothing to do with our current view point, does that mean the actions by the US in the 1970s in the Middle East have nothing to do with the present situation there? In other words, the race riots still have relevance today.

A great deal of people who immigrate here, come here to escape the problems in their countries. A common complaint I have heard about immigrants, is that although they escape, they end up bringing that feeling with them. Having lived for so long under such persecution it still plays a large part in their lives, and it takes years to dissolve.

Personally, I've found democracy in Canada is becoming more and more flawed as tyranny of the minority plays a larger and larger role. This tyranny of the minority could be seen as accepted racism, under the guise, that as the little guy we can make fun of the larger section but anyone else can not say otherwise. It can be very hard to be tolerant/accepting of other people and their views when they aren't tolerant/accepting of you. (This goes for religion, politics and near anything else).

Canada is not a perfect nation, but nor is it the worst. When we can protect all our citizens, maybe we can move forward more easily, but I believe we will then be criticized for being more like the US then we should be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"The human mind is inherently good, at the same time as being inherently bad or flawed"









Implies "absolutes" - sorry I don't buy that at all.

"beginning to see" in economic theory Chealion - Adam Smith was wrong. Of course cooperation is clear in practice - that's what a thesis is about to match theory with observation and John Nash advanced "game theory"/economic theory with his insight.
We observe and use the effects of gravity, it's biologically inherent to us, yet we still fail to have a comprehensive theory of gravity in relation to other fundamental forces.
The west has tended to glorify competition and call cooperation socialism for ideological reasons.
Understanding the dynamic tension between the two and altering viewpoints is what that essay was about and in part what John Nash's insight was about.

••
Sovereignity is the issue Chealion and you are missing the point that the world has no cogent method of both respecting sovereignity and dealing with acts such as racial cleansing. That's the underlying issue of Iraq - without the UN approval the US sets a dangerous precedent.

Racial riots in Canada in 1960 have nothing to do with the current view of Canada other than perhaps WE have corrected SOME of the issues underlying them - it's red herring as the point is dicussing how the Canada is currently viewed versus how the US is currently viewed by the rest of the world.
Of course history moulds those views as they evolve but the comment that referred to the riots was not positioned that way at all.

"Personally, I've found democracy in Canada is becoming more and more flawed as tyranny of the minority plays a larger and larger"

It's not tyranny Chealion it's protection and unfortunately forced respect. You overlook the impact of your own culture on those with different cultures. You live surrounded by your culture and don't see it through other's eyes. We've been around this block before.

Protecting our citizens is not by military means and never will be - it's by being a respected partner among nations.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

*What do race riots in Ontario in the 60s have to do with the current view of Canada[?]*

I dunno. What do the "war of independence, slavery, aboriginal genocide, adventurism and territorial theft, civil war, civil rights, defeating the League of Nations effort, MaCarthyism, failing to pay the UN, Vietnam, The Seven Dwarves, World Court, global warming the middle east and untold other economic and cultural horrors unleashed upon it's own citizens and the world" [source] have to do with the current view of the US?

--PB


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They have determined how the US has been viewed by others in the world and by many of it's own citizens. 
Is Canada viewed generally as a place that supports minorites and diversities? Yes.
Is the US? no?

Does Canada have a history of adventurism and Imperialism. No
Does the US. Yes

Is Canada a well respected world citizen. Yes
Is the US. NO.....with a bullet.

Is Canada a threat to the rest of the world in the eyes of the world. NO
Is the US. Yes

Therein lies the heart of the matter.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

*Is Canada viewed generally as a place that supports minorites and diversities? Yes.
Is the US? no?*

You do realise of course that the US is built on entirely different political foundations than Canada, right? The US melting pot idea is based on sameness. 

Say you move to America from India and you becomes a citizen. The idea is that you are now an American, not an Indian-American, At least that is the idea.

They are also much more egalitarian (as in they are far less accepting of class differences), they are far less trusting of government, they are far more religious than Canada and they hold the belief that the US is a unique and great culture.

And you know what? None of that is bad, it is just different.

*Does Canada have a history of adventurism and Imperialism. No
Does the US. Yes*

Right, because America has colonies all over the world. *cough*

*Is Canada a well respected world citizen. Yes
Is the US. NO.....with a bullet.
Is Canada a threat to the rest of the world in the eyes of the world. NO
Is the US. Yes*

So you've polled every other country in the world to find this out right? 

Despite all the respect that other countries have for us, when was the last time we got anything done?

Did you ever stop and think that just because many people around the world don't agree with the US, they might still respect them[1]?

*Therein lies the heart of the matter. *

Maybe, but I still don't understand how all of this can validate the hypocritical view that Canadian recent history has no bearing on 'the current view' when American recent history does.

--PB

[1] This certainly doesn't go for everyone, but it is possible to respect someone despite not agreeing with them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I see I have missed a good fight while I was away.  

Having just waded through the entire thread I have only a few short comments to make:

-Macdoc now holds the "most long-winded reply" honours. I pass the mantle to him. (at least he can get a smokin deal on new keyboards when he wears them out. I have to buy mine at full retail)

-PosterBoy is making a very good and well-balanced argument ...especialy for someone who is not necessarily a giant fan of the US.

-Chealion is again blowing my mind with his wisdom and savvy. This is a very old soul in a young mans body. No question about it.  

-Like many Canadians, Macdoc seems to have a rather inflated idea of our presence on the world stage. We are almost invisible to most people in most countries and...in Latin America (where I have spent a third of my life)...we are usually thought of as some sort of semi-American. Only the more well-educated among them seem to be aware that there is any real difference between Canadians and Americans. A rather small difference, as well. That's the impression I got. 

-I doubt if I could add much else to this argument. It's good stuff! Please continue.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Welcome home Macnutt!

I, too, have just finished reading the thread top to bottom, and see much of interest form MacDoc, PosterBoy and Chealion. In fact the thread presents a microcosmic picture of the true difficulties which seem to face us, Canadians, as we move forward into the new century. 

basically, I see it as a question of tolerance. In Canada, we seem much more willing to accept the differences in human human nature brought about by the social, political and economic realities of other peoples' cultural roots. In the past, as has been pointed out by all posters, bad things tended to happen to good people. Time and effort usually resulted in corrective action being put into place and what was once acceptable social behaviour became unacceptable. That's how social groups have always evolved.

Today, however, we seem to be faced with a situation where we no longer have the luxury of time. With the rush towards globalization brought about by the advent of instant, real-time communications, we frequently find ourselves being forced to act impulsively to solve extremely complex problems. There was a time, not so long ago, when the events of 9/11 would have taken weeks to have an impact on the population at large and even then the images would have been static photographs of the end result rather than full colour video streams of the actual event accompanied by the sickening sound of human bodies hitting the pavement. The differences have had a tremendous impact upon the resulting American call-to-action.

Similar events transpire throughout the world on a daily basis. Iraqi's watching real time feeds of the American's bombing Bagdad. Afghan's following the devistating results of an American bomb gone wrong. 

What we have, to bring up one of my pet projects, is a situation where we, the citizens of the planet, have far to much information and far to little knowledge. This leads to a basic inability on the part of most people to process the data in such a way as to allow them to properly weigh both sides of any given story. This, in turn, all to frequently leads to rushed judgements and in correct decisions.

Education is the key.

MIke


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Posterboy quit being pompous
"You do realize of course"  

The IDEA of what the US could be
What was envisioned to be by the founders originally and What developed as the "Great Experiment" unfolded over time ......is far different than what it actually IS.

And in my view it's not very pretty, the nation owned and controlled by a few wealthy familes. the gap between rich and poor immense and growing. 
Some dream, some ideal.

•••••
"Right, because America has colonies all over the world. *cough*"

And what is that supposed to indicate? An intelligent thought out response? - Well I CAN say it's in character.

••••
I personally didn't "poll every other country" no. It WAS done however and the results were not supportive of Bush....at all. And not a 50 -50 like his non-mandate. Overwhelmingly so that his largest trading partners - Canada AND Mexico ( who had far more to lose ) refused to back him.
••

One of the lasting things we "got done" recently was the Landmine agreement...of course except for the US as a very notable exception, sort of like the World Court decision, also a notable exception.
And this just recently
"UNITED NATIONS, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Lloyd Axworthy, the former Canadian foreign affairs minister, is expected to serve as a special U.N. envoy to break the stalemate on demarcating the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea, diplomatic sources said on Friday."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05374953.htm 
••

Well if you still don't understand then also "therein lies the heart of the matter".









••
"PosterBoy is making a very good and well-balanced argument ...especially for someone who is not necessarily a giant fan of the US"

Well that certainly puts things in perspective - when the rahs rahs for the other side come from the fringe dwellers I KNOW I must be on the right track  
••

Guiness
"Basically, I see it as a question of tolerance. In Canada, we seem much more willing to accept the differences in human human nature brought about by the social, political and economic realities of other peoples' cultural roots."

Yes very much on point and it's in the attempted imposition of American values - especially by the current regime where the US gets so much anger from other peoples.
There is this arrogance...the smirk..there is no other word..on Bush's face that incites so much opposition as it reflects too often the American populaces views.

Americans get very little sense of their place on a multicultural planet in their education stream. In some ways they are as isolated as those in the Soviet were - not by state enforement but by ,the meida, the education system and down right indifference.
The "we're the Big Dog" an we really don't care much about anything else. 

Europeans live i a multiverse. Canadians have moved forward from the staid "well we're British aren't we" to a very different national culture...sure we have things to correct - racial profiling is a big issue.
But we KNOW we live in a multiverse.

The US far too often, and this regime in particular, shows intense disrespect for other cultures and norms.
Flouting the long standing tradition of keeping open religious practices out of the UN is exactly typical of Bush's gnorance and arrogance.

The US talks of "winning hearts and minds"....the current regime has failed miserably at that and has fractured the world community in a horrendous manner.

"This new US doctrine changes everything. For virtually all of the previous 50 years since the end of World War II and including the 40-year period of the Cold War, the US stance was one of defence and deterrence. It was never a posture of pre-emptive strike. In these new circumstances, the US will determine which countries or groups it considers might threaten it in the future and initiate military action against them."

Comforting isn't it.

Here's hoping a year from now a new approach and new government holds sway in the US.









I'll drink to that 

[ December 10, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: Here's hoping a year from now a new approach and new government holds sway in the US

I really don't think, in my heart of hearts that even a new government in the US is going to mean that big a change. We have to be talking about a very fundamental shift in America's world view, and I don't see a change in government achieving that. Sure it will bring them back from the edge that GWB has driven towards, however I think that only something as earth shattering as a complete economic collapse will truly open their eyes to terrible hole they are digging for themselves.

Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well put Guiness. As always.  

While I would like to think that we Canadians are "more tolerant" of cultural differences than are the Americans, my experiences have not borne that out.

I lived and worked in the US for a number of years and I can honestly say that the people I met there are, by and large, just as "tolerant" as we Canadians seem to think we are. More so, in some cases.

And there are some serious racial problems cropping up in Vancouver right now. Attacks by Indo-Canadian youths on newly arrived Filipino immigrants are hitting the news these days. One young man was beaten to death because of his racial background last week. This is not an isolated case, BTW.

We live in a huge country with a small population. As we get more crowded, I suspect that we will experience many of the same problems that the US has had to deal with. I think it's to their great credit that the Americans have changed the way they deal with all the diverse racial groups that now call that country home. I've stood in line for a work visa renewal in the States...along side a veritable rainbow of people from different cultures. Without exception, the American officials treated all of us with great courtesy and consideration.

Same goes for the different American companies I worked for. Lots of different people from different countries worked for these outfits and I never saw any evidence that any of us were treated especially badly. Quite the contrary, actually. "Expatriates" as we were referred to, were often given better opportunities than regular US citizens when it came to what jobs we worked and what countries we were sent to.

And they certainly didn't underpay any of us!   

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are some Canadians who seem to be very smug about how much 'better" or more "tolerant" we are than the Americans.

My advice? Be a little more "tolerant" of the gentle giant to the south of us. The USA is largely made up of good and decent people and they are trying their level best to make a better world. For everyone. If they ever did get as nasty as some of you seem to think they are, then you would really and truly have nothing more to be smug about. In very short order.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Obviously several new posts were added to this thread while I was writing my reply to Guiness and macdoc . See the previous page for this to make any sort of sense.

Speaking of making sense....I don't suppose anyone here can tell me just exactly what would have happened if the US had NOT taken on Afghanistan and then moved into Iraq, could they? These are the "pre-emptive strikes" and "deep holes" that were mentioned, are they not

Would Gore have done anything differently had he won the Presidency? Where would we be right now, if that were the case?


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: ... Be a little more "tolerant" of the gentle giant to the south of us. The USA is largely made up of good and decent people and they are trying their level best to make a better world ...

I think that you have to realize that most people don't have a problem with individual Americans, it's their government and the general malaise that seems to effect them whenever they band together into large groups that we tend to dislike. I also deal expensively with American's and almost without exception they are wonderful people. My fear is that they don't seem to realize just what their government is devolving into and it will be to late before they do.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: ... if the US had NOT taken on Afghanistan and then moved into Iraq, could they?

I don't have a problem at all with taking on Afghanistan. That was the right move and I think that most Canadians would agree with me. A quick and deadly response had to be made to Al Qaeda and it was - with, if you recall the cooperation and assistance of a lot of countries, Canada included.

As far as Iraq goes...

If the US had NOT jumped immediately into Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, acting like the toothless tiger it turns out he was. Possibly an internal regime change would have taken place but I doubt it. UN inspectors would have had no more success than US forces have had in finding the WMD's, and the Palestinian uprising would be carrying on just like it is today. The US economy would not be in quite as big a hole as it is today. Haliburton Industries would be making less money.

However ...

The complete military and financial commitment of the US and her international Allies in Canada, France, England, Germany, Russia etc., would have led to a dramatically different Afghanistan. With sufficient forces, the security of the mid-sized urban areas would have been guaranteed. With sufficient financial strength, the poppy fields would not be back in full production because the local economy would be years ahead of it's present pace. With a strong international presence, the various warlords would have been forced to come to the table and disarm. Education, communication, politicization, health, welfare etc., etc., would be years ahead of where they are.

Need I go on.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Guiness yes but you know Vietnam created a huge national angst and it still exists which is why I think a new government will at least reverse some of the damage abroad in policy. I think Bush knows this because of his refusal to attend funerals. Quagmire is a real bad word and Afghanistan may bring down TWO empires not just one.
••••

MacNutt by and large Americans as individuals ARE generous and fun but boy do many have blinkers.

I'm not implying we are in any way perfect - there is loads of work to do here as well but I think we are on a track that is important as role model. 

You are right, when conditions deteriorate strife flares up and societies struggle to deal with it. I'm of the opinion we are doing a better job internally and internationally....that may well be because we have less responsibility AND more room and resources.

As far as dealing with the US border, security and the mentality to the world right now - not pre 911 but now - it's scary. Put some shoe polish on, talk with an accent then see how the view is.....even WITH a Canadian passport.

I really don't perceive the US as any kind of gentle tho. I have deep abiding distrust of the power structure, not the individuals but the structure......and apparently around the world I'm not in the least alone in that.

What's interesting is that I believe many Americans feel the same way.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...we are all in agreement that Afghanistan was a good thing.

But we seem to differ on Iraq. Fair enough.

Simply taking Afghanistan out of play and forcing the Taliban to give up their hold on that country would not have accomplished much if they'd been able to easily move into some other rogue state and resume their business as usual.

Good candidates for this new residence would have to be:

-Iran
-Iraq
-Yemen
-Syria

Not necessarily in that order.

Yemen is even more primitive than Afghanistan, if that's possible, and there is a signifigant US presence in the area. A good bolt-hole perhaps....but not suitable for a long term terrorist stronghold of any size.

Syria would be OK, but the new leader is a western educated opthamologist who is a bit timid and barely the shadow of his old ruthless Dad. 

Iran would be great, but it's a bit removed from the rest of the middle east....not being Arab and all...plus the mullahs are in charge and practically the whole country is turning out for mass demonstrations demanding... _GASP_ ...democracy, of all things! Better rule that one out too.

Which only leaves good old Iraq. With a despotic and ruthless tyrant who is sitting on the second largest high quality oil reserve on the planet. Who has more conventional weapons stored in bunkers out in the desert than all of Europe and most of Asia combined. Who has harboured and helped and financed terrorists in the past. Who has regularly thumbed his nose at the UN and hates the USA with a passion.

Hmmmmm.....now where would _YOU_ go if you were a newly displaced Taliban?









So George W. made what I think is a very shrewd chess move. He went into Iraq and dispatched the old tyrant in record time. 

Suddenly the whole paradigm changed.

Every rogue state in the area suddenly sat up and took note. Syria became much more co-operative and is actively pursuing some of the terrorist groups it used to harbour. Iran is less "adventurous" than it was a short time ago and is now allowing UN inspection of it's nuclear program. The people of Iran are watching what happens next door with great interest because they are agitating for democracy....and the mullahs are probably packing their bags as we speak.

Even Saudi Arabia has changed their tune.

And there is no soft landing for the Taliban now. No place where they can operate openly and freely. They have to dart around and hide....which takes up scarce resources and keeps them a bit more off-balance.

In one fell swoop George Bush Jr. changed everything about the middle east. And if he is ultimately sucessful in getting democracy started in Iraq (many think he will be) then he will have sown the seeds that will totally remake one of the most violent and backward areas on this planet.

He has also cut off the money pipeline to North Korea from Saddam. This should shorten the demented dwarfs reign in that rogue state as well.

This is all good stuff. But you have to be able to see the big picture.

Kind of like when there is a forest fire threatening your town....and the firemen come in and set another fire to remove the flammable material and stop the fire. 

It's called a "back burn". It's a bit shocking to watch (_mommy...why are the guys on the fire trucks STARTING a bunch of new fires, instead of putting the big one out?_ )

Think of what has happened over the past year or so as a "back burn". It is a scary roll of the dice, but it should work out just fine in the long run. 

I'm just glad he has the resolve and the cojones to actually DO something about this situation. Certainly none of his recent predecessors have been able to do anything really constructive in the area.

THAT'S how we ended up in this pickle, after all.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

I'm sorry if you misread my tone, if you are just going to insult me rather than actually rebut what I say, well, I am going to stop saying things.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

PosterBoy...

Please don't take insults from macdoc or anyone else as _personal_ . I don't think they are meant as such. (at least that's what I choose to believe).

Grow a thick skin. Let it roll off and laugh at the fact that when they start to insult you personally, it means that they have run out of rebuttals for your arguments and have had to resort to personal attacks .

It shows that their argument has run out of gas. It is an admission of failure. 









And please don't stop talking. You are making a lot of sense and I look forward to reading what you've posted here.

I'm listening. I suspect that several others are as well. Please continue. Your thoughts are important.

Far more important and far more relevant than those who have to resort to personal insults in their replies to you.

It means that they have failed. Publicly. And it means you have won!

Always remember that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB It's not an insult it's an observation which most people assessing the tone of your comments would acknowledge as an accurate assessment.

Call a spade a spade - 
The phrase ""You do realize of course" and "cough" as presented offer an insulting approach and attitude - the EXACT kind of snide tone you are very quick to get on Macello's case for.

I simply gave an accurate and literary name to the nature of your approach and I did so in public.
If you wish not to be labelled such, then change the smart assed and thin skinned attitude.

Explain exactly how "cough" fits into this dialogue at all?
You know exactly what you meant to imply and you know exactly that it's insulting. I didn't "misunderstand it nor did others here. And you got called on it.
Now you are attempting to say I "misread" your tone.

Why don't you ask the other readers here if I 'misinterpreted" your approach.

Your "cough" line is exactly the "non-rebuttal" that you are now in high dudgeon about. That line was not in any way shape or form a rebuttal and you know it. 
It was a smart assed "well I wouldn't want to embarrass you, us boys know better eh" bit of sarcasm.
I'm not misreading it at all.

I have and always will give back in kind.

•••••

Macnutt nice try







- I can see that tongue stuck waaaay in your cheek.  
You know very well I was responding in kind and you are absolutely correct in your observation about "grow a thick skin". 
Those who hand out sarcasm, even when attempting to veil it should get used to getting it handed back in kind.

You get labelled a red neck and revel in it, I get named liberal pansy quite proudly thank you. 

[ December 10, 2003, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt,

*Grow a thick skin.*

If we are all friends here, as Macdoc himself has pointed out may times, I shouldn't have to. Since regardless of the insults he seems to be merely dancing around my main points rather than actually rebutting them, continuing seems a waste of time.

Macdoc,

I am sorry if sarcasm is lost on you, but I fail to see where me having a different point of view than you makes me a pompous ass. Maybe if you actually answered my points instead of just taking issue with the way I present them this would seem less pointless for me.

--PB


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

""Right, because America has colonies all over the world. *cough*"

How exactly would you like me to answer that' "rebuttal".
It has NO purpose other than sarcasm.

Chealion has the grace to explain where he thinks I'm misreading his intent and to explain himself.

Don't ask me I'm biased....ask the readers.

Sarcasm is not lost on me...( and you continue the snide approach with that comment as well ) - it gets returned in kind. It seems you are the one that is over sensitive to it - hence "thick skin" comment you got from someone who DOES agree with your viewpoint and STILL sees the attitude issue.

A differing view point does not make you a "pompous ass" your phrasing does.


----------



## Livingroom (May 11, 2003)

I'm with Macnut on the fact that sadly Canada is percieved to be an american satellite pretty much. A nice place to visit but really seen as just another state. Not the reality but the perecption of many.
The sad thing about americans is so many of them belive their own propaganda. Or so many are apathetic to the point it looks that way.
I read a piece awhile ago about an econmist who after WW2 realised the american economy would have to become the consumer economy that it is now as the old pattern could not sustain the growth of industry the way the war had caused. The need for for constant growth to me has alwyas been based on the notion of cheap labour bolstering up big business. When the man in street in China catches up to the rest of the devloped world in standard of living we will then see the real free market.

When we look back on G W Bush I wonder if all his military nonsence in the was simply a way to manipulate comodity (oil) prices for a bunch of the super rich?

And as Mike has just said "education is the key".


----------



## Livingroom (May 11, 2003)

I'm with Macnut on the fact that sadly Canada is percieved to be an american satellite pretty much. A nice place to visit but really seen as just another state. Not the reality but the perecption of many.
The sad thing about americans is so many of them belive their own propaganda. Or so many are apathetic to the point it looks that way.
I read a piece awhile ago about an econmist who after WW2 realised the american economy would have to become the consumer economy that it is now as the old pattern could not sustain the growth of industry the way the war had caused. The need for for constant growth to me has alwyas been based on the notion of cheap labour bolstering up big business. When the man in street in China catches up to the rest of the devloped world in standard of living we will then see the real free market.

When we look back on G W Bush I wonder if all his military nonsence in the was simply a way to manipulate comodity (oil) prices for a bunch of the super rich?

And as Mike has just said "education is the key".


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacDoc: Quagmire is a real bad word and Afghanistan may bring down TWO empires not just one.

Make that three since it could easily be argued that the British and Soviet Empires began their fall in Afghanistan also.

Mike


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*""Right, because America has colonies all over the world. *cough*"

How exactly would you like me to answer that' "rebuttal".*

You called the USA imperialist. I said the line with sarcasm because really, America isn't imperialist, if there were they'd, you know, _have an empire_? 

But the more important point, I am still waiting for you to explain how exactly recent Canadian history has no bearing a discussion about 'the current view' when recent American history does. How exactly is it that you can bring up America's past and then dismiss Canada's out of hand? 
How am I supposed to _not_ interpret this as hypocritical?

And America is built on a different social/political system. They don't celebrate their diversity because in the mind of the American they aren't diverse: They are all Americans. I only brought it up because you seem to be having difficulty reconciling that fundamental difference between the American and Canadian socio-political systems.

From your posts it would be easy to infer that you think America is fundamentally flawed and that Canada has all the answers and I am sorry, but that is just plain wrong. America has a lot of good points, Canada has a lot of good points, but to say that either system is 'good' or 'bad' wholesale is just a *touch* naive.

*Sarcasm is not lost on me...( and you continue the snide approach with that comment as well ) - it gets returned in kind. It seems you are the one that is over sensitive to it - hence "thick skin" comment you got from someone who DOES agree with your viewpoint and STILL sees the attitude issue.*

Does he see the attitude issue? The main points of the his post seem to be more along the lines of don't worry about the insults.

He said: 
_PosterBoy_
_Grow a thick skin. Let it roll off and laugh at the fact that when they start to insult you personally, it means that they have run out of rebuttals [...] It shows that their argument has run out of gas. It is an admission of failure. 
And please don't stop talking. You are making a lot of sense and I look forward to reading what you've posted here. [...] Your thoughts are important. Far more important and far more relevant than those who have to resort to personal insults in their replies to you.
It means that they have failed. Publicly. And it means you have won!_

Sorry, I don't see where he has a problem with my attitude. Did you ask him in a private message? You're not presuming to know what he thinks are you? At the very least, it looks like you might be trying to put words in his mouth, and realistically I think he has enough words in his mouth for the both of us.









And for the record, if I had been trying to talk the same way that I usually call others on, I would have said something more along the lines of "You do realise of course that [...] don't you, you pompous ass?". If you want, I can litter my posts with emoticons to make the tone more clear, but that just isn't my style.

--PB


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: Simply taking Afghanistan out of play ...

An interesting assessment of events as they could have transpired. 

And to be honest with you, I find very little there to argue with.

That being said, however, it brings us back to the choice of methodologies employed. The true danger in GWB's actions as far as I am concerned lies with his insistence on unilateral action taken BEFORE just cause could be established. It's all well and good to say that Iraq was the next likely point of establishment for the Taliban (although I think you meant to say Al Qaeda since the Taliban is a fundamentalist Islamic group and Saddam would have had absolutley nothing to do with them), however at the time when GWB made his move there was a) no evidence supporting this claim and B) ample evidence that it would never happen - based upon Saddam's dislike of sectarian organizations. 

Furthermore, if the US is going to go and establish an international precedence which allows for a pre-emptive strike upon another nation based solely upon a suspicion that they are a danger to someones national security, then every nation is at deadly risk of being invaded.

To use your fire-fighter analogy. It's fine to set a back-fire burning to halt a forest fire which is roaring towards my house and which I agree is a clear and present danger to my house, but if someone decides that they should set a fire in my yard to clear deadwood because they think that the fire, though miles away at the moment may possibly come towards me, then I will object with every once of my will.

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> Posterboy: Say you move to America from India and you becomes a citizen. The idea is that you are now an American, not an Indian-American, At least that is the idea.

Which is why we now have African-Americans and Latinos and Native-Americans etc. The melting pot idea was a good but unworkable idea. It was fine as long as the inflow to the pot was mostly white european's, but as more ethnic diversity was added to the pot, it began to separate - like butter - into various sub-cultures. Now they are faced with a situation where the majority still like to believe that the end result of immigration is a society composed of a single homogenous culture. In reality, however, that stopped being the case shortly after WWII.

>>They are also much more egalitarian (as in they are far less accepting of class differences), they are far less trusting of government, they are far more religious than Canada and they hold the belief that the US is a unique and great culture.

Correct, they hold the belief that the US is unique and great. Unfortunately, they refuse to accept the possibility that it is not the rest of the global community does not necessarily agree.

>> And you know what? None of that is bad, it is just different.

Not bad in and of itself. However, when those beliefs result in an inability to get along with their friends and neighbours because of a stubborn incidence on holding on to those beliefs well after they should be willing to change, then they present a very real danger.

Mike


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by calling PosterBoy a "pompous ass", or by returning sarcasm in kind? If you're interested in community building might it not be best to just turn the other cheek?

One point I'd like to make is that while the US has been chastised by the international community for not signing the landmine treaty (which, apparently, only covers antipersonnel mines, not all mines), I think they've got a few good reasons for wanting to continue to use landmines (the DMZ between North and South Korea being the most notable one).


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Which is why we now have African-Americans and Latinos and Native-Americans etc. The melting pot idea was a good but unworkable idea. It was fine as long as the inflow to the pot was mostly white european's, but as more ethnic diversity was added to the pot, it began to separate - like butter - into various sub-cultures. Now they are faced with a situation where the majority still like to believe that the end result of immigration is a society composed of a single homogenous culture. In reality, however, that stopped being the case shortly after WWII.*

This is true but, if you ask an Indian-American in the US what they are chances are they will say "I am an American." Ask the same questions in Canada and chances are they will say "I am an Indian, I live in Canada."

I don't think the melting pot is unworkable, just hard. Certainly the world will have to be a lot more colour blind before it works well.

*Correct, they hold the belief that the US is unique and great. Unfortunately, they refuse to accept the possibility that it is not the rest of the global community does not necessarily agree.*

But realistically, why would you expect them to accept the possibility that it isn't? I know many Canadians that feel exactly the same way about Canada, and Israelis that feel the same way about Israel, and Brits who feel the same way about the UK. I guess what I am trying to say is that Nationalism isn't limited to the US by any means, but it only seems to be a problem when it is them. Why? Is it because they have the most guns, or because they sometimes go against the grain to do what they view as 'the right thing'[1]?

*...when those beliefs result in an inability to get along with their friends and neighbours because of a stubborn incidence on holding on to those beliefs well after they should be willing to change, then they present a very real danger.*

But again, why should they be willing to change? Their whole nation is built on being independent, and being different. They set out their constitution with the goal of being completely different from other countries (or more specifically England) and it has worked for a long time. Would you want Canada to change if part of the global community started saying "Canada is a pretentious git!, they should lighten up![2]"

--PB

[1] Such as removing Saddam from power
[2] Lame example I know, but I couldn't quickly think of anything that the global community would have against Canada.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> Posterboy: Why? Is it because they have the most guns, or because they sometimes go against the grain to do what they view as 'the right thing'[1]?

When there view of what is "the right thing" goes against the view of most of the rest of the world, including most of their historical allies, then yes, I would expect them to reconsider or run the risk of being looked upon as a loose cannon.

>> Would you want Canada to change if part of the global community started saying "Canada is a pretentious git!, they should lighten up![2]"

In a word, Yes.

It's all well and good for the American's to harken back to the frontier days as to how and why they developed the society that they have, However, times change and they had better be ready to change with them. They seem to be totally tied up in the bigger is better social structure which was the natural outcome of their 19th century conquest of the west. They have yet to realize that modern day civilization may demand a more thoughtful mode of operation.
Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think that what most Americans have come to realise, since 9/11 is this:

1)-The UN is a powerless figurehead group that is paralyzed by the self-interests of numerous member countries who do not have leaders who are actually elected by their citizens. Plus a handful of other more modern nations (that do actually hold regular elections)who are busy making side deals with the aforementioned despots in order to secure the natural resources they need. The devil and his henchmen.

The resulting gridlock is well-documented and renders the whole organisation impotent. To put it kindly.

2)-Certain groups will stop at nothing to exploit these weaknesses in the system and will attack free Nations at will. In terrible ways.

3)-The UN and it's member nations will do nothing about any of this. See number one. 

4)-If you want it done right...then you have to get out there and do it yourself. Stop the idiots where they live, scatter them all over the place, remove their funding as best you can, then take out any new safe harbour they might be looking at.

5)-Try and use everything that is available to spark a brand new free and prosperous democracy right smack in the middle of the "danger zone". Once they have what we already have, they will be too busy making mortgage payments and picking the kids up from school in their new SUV's to even consider blowing themselves up in a crowded place.

So far...they seem to be right on track with all of this. Today there was a popular protest in Iraq against terrorism and for democracy. 

Too bad so many people can't see what is right before their eyes. Too busy hating and fearing the Americans, I guess.

Your loss. My condolences.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: I think that what most Americans have come to realise, since 9/11 is this:

I think that what most Americans have *failed* to come to realize since 9/11 is this:

One of the primary sources of side-deals and in-effectiveness of the UN is the United States government.

I can not disagree with you about the general ineffectiveness of the political enforcement arm of the United Nations. It definitely has displayed itself as a system that doesn't work. Two points to keep in mind, however. 

First, never forget the huge number of extremely beneficial and effective programs that the UN does promote. Various UN agencies do wonderful work throughout the world particularly in areas effecting children, education and health. 

Second, the way I was brought up, the first thing you do when something is broken is to try to fix it. It seems to me that far to many nations are more concerned with making the UN *not* work than with making it work. Certainly it would be a long and hard task, and it might have to be completely re-built. However, some form of world body must exist in order to have stewardship of the rules governing the relationship between nations. If we don't have an arbitrator, then the guy with the biggest stick always wins (sounds like GWB's theory).

Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree with you on the UN and their good deeds. I also agree that they were turning into a frat party for despots and their enablers.

That's why they needed a good shaking up.

They got it. In spades.  

Watch what happens next.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB
A) flail away all you like attempting to justify your tone but you haven't asked others....and it's just more of the same.

B) "if you ask an Indian-American in the US what they are chances are they will say "I am an American." Ask the same questions in Canada and chances are they will say "I am an Indian, I live in Canada."

How many First Nations people have you met that call themselves "Indians" ...your example here to illuminate your point is pretty close to the worst one you could possibly choose.

No American Empire  
Strange that Doonsbury an American himself and an astute observer and satirist seems to think otherwise along with many worldwide and US luminaries like Noam Chomsky.

Searching on Pax Americana certainly turns up many references to empire and hegemony.
A view from Australia
Gabriel Kolko: The perils of Pax Americana

13jan03

POLICIES virtually identical to President George W. Bush's national security strategy paper of last September, with its ambitious military, economic and political goals, have been produced since the late 1940s.

After all, the US has attempted to define the contours of politics in every part of the world for the past half-century. Its many alliances, from NATO to SEATO, were intended to consolidate its global hegemony. And Washington rationalised its hundreds of interventions – which have taken every form, from sending its fleet to show the flag, to the direct use of US soldiers – as forestalling the spread of communism. But that ogre has all but disappeared and US armed forces are more powerful and active than ever.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks compelled him to create "coalitions", Bush minimised somewhat the initial aggressive unilateralism that he and many of his key advisers believe the US's overwhelming military capability justifies.

But his disregard of America's allies in the past year is only the logical culmination of the much older conviction that Washington must define the missions of whatever alliance it creates. The world has changed dramatically, but the US still retains its historical ambitions to shape the political destinies of any region or nation it deems important to its interests. Bush's visions are only the logical culmination of policies that began with president Harry Truman in 1947.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5829495,00.html

within the US

"Pax Americana

From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

The concept for a Pax Americana (global peace) was outlined in President George Walker Bush's 31-page The National Security Strategy of the United States of America [hereafter referred to as simply "the plan"] that was released on September 20, 2002.

Journalist Jay Bookman observed that the plan "marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that the plan attributes largely to the attacks of September 11, 2002."[1] 

In response to the threat of terrorism, Bush's plan calls for a "newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies." Bookman says that it speaks in blunt terms of what the plan calls American internationalism, of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

The plan "dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic" and, rather, speaks about convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. "In essence, it lays out a plan forpermanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."

To accomplish this goal, the "United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The plan repeatedly refers to terrorism, Bookman adds, which is misleading since the "approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by" the events of September 11. The same language is found in a report -- Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategies, Forces and Resources For a New Century -- issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The report was co-chaired by Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt, with Thomas Donnelly the principal author. Bookman refers to the PNAC as "a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire."

The plan goes on to say that, "At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals ... The challenge of this coming century," it continues, "is to preserve and enhance this American peace."

* No empire??* 

And another from Australia
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030804-pax-americana01.htm

"Washington now has military forces in about 130 countries, fighting in some of them, peacekeeping and training foreign military units in others. You can hear George Washington turning in his grave"

Strange Australia, a world away should be concerned.

* From Europe* 

"An Imperial View 

Cultural ambassador Peter Ustinov weighs in on Pax Americana, the Middle East and more

BY ROBERT KROON

Long before Russell Crowe helped reignite filmgoers' enthusiasm for Roman epics, Sir Peter Ustinov, now 81, was king of the genre. He fiddled as Nero while Rome burned in Quo Vadis? (1951) and won the first of his two Academy Awards in 1960 for a supporting role in Stanley Kubrick'sSpartacus. "When I was in Rome for the 50th anniversary of Quo Vadis?, the mayor asked me to say a few words in Italian," Ustinov recalls. "I reminded him I was Nero, who only spoke Latin." The story captures the wit and erudition for which Ustinov — who was knighted in 1990 for his accomplishments as an actor, director, playwright, opera-producer, historian, philosopher and raconteur-at-large — has long been celebrated.

The empires are very similar. That's why Americans make the best Roman films.

These days Nero can't help but reflect on the similarities between ancient Rome and modern America. "We had Pax Romana, now there's Pax Americana," Ustinov says. "The empires are very close to each other — the eagle, the legions, the respect for the flag. "

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901030120-407294,00.html

* But there is NO American Empire of course..complete figments of overactive imaginations. A worldwide mass delusion of unprecedented scale * 

* From France* 

"French historian, Emmanuel Todd predicted the fall of the Soviet Union 25 years ago. To his credit, the communist bloc fell within three years of his prediction. His prediction has garnered him respect from some of the top political scientists and historians worldwide. His books are included as required reading at many colleges and universities (including ISU, in which I read his book, very interesting). 

Now the famed historian has set his sights on the western allaince, and primarily the United States. He has claimed that the current American system of power and dominance is about to fail. His reasons included dependence on military power, dependance on overseas companies and other nations to supply its massive consumption along with becoming ideologically weak. "

http://ubersonic.org/content/article.php/aid/114

his decision isn't any one person's doing. Neo-conservatives along with leftist-liberals, or moderate presidents alike have taken all of this for granted. Their beliefs that America had a moral imperative to lead the world and execute its foreign policy where ever and when ever it choses, along with ignoring an economy that has been slowly slipping away has caused the situation. 

The only worry now is how much damage will she do on her way out of the empirial club. 

Resources and Links: 
"The Conceited Empire", The Dominion. 
http://dominionpaper.ca/features/2003/the_conceited_empire.html 

"The Eagle Has Crashed", Wallerstein. Foreign Policy. 
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html 

"After the Empire; The Breakdown of the American System" Todd. (Synopsis) Columbia University Press. 
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023113/023113102X.HTM

* But there is NO American empire...pernicious drivel.* 

"Consolidating Pax-Americana

Columnist M B NAQVI analyses the unipolar domination of the world by the US.

The US President George W. Bush began a tour of Europe in the last week of May ‘02. At the time of writing he had already toured Germany, Russia and France. Doubtless he was to visit a few other European countries, notably Italy. How is this tour to be assessed is the question.

From the American side, it had been billed as an attempt to consolidate and strengthen European support for America’s War on Terrorism. In American perception, the European support was beginning to sag. Bush’s purpose, it was claimed, was to reinvigorate the European allegiance to for American leadership. Insofar as it goes, many would endorse the intention, though it is not simply to firm up or strengthen America’s War on Terror. It goes well beyond mere pep talk to the European leaders and to remind them that how bad Terrorism is and how necessary it is to fight it resolutely. That would be preaching to the already converted. Main European leaders do not disagree with the American formulation that Terrorism is a bad thing and that it should be fought. It is only that the Europeans have begun noticing other facts than what the American publicists insist on.

An outstanding feature that emerged in the three capitals he first visited, viz. Berlin, St. Petersburg and Paris was the spontaneous popular protest against America’s war in Asia. It cannot be said that the protestors were the supporters of Terror —- any Terrorism anywhere —- or to think that any protestor in Europe was in favour of Terrorism anywhere would be monstrous. What they were protesting against was a war that they do not believe would (a) end terrorism, properly so-called; (b) that America is going the right way about fighting terrorism; and (c) the American objectives in the War appear to most people, particularly the Europeans, to go far beyond eradicating simple Terrorism like those represented by Taliban or Al-Qaeda. The spontaneous protests were from people who are sophisticated enough and politically well aware of international trends. They are clearly signalling that they do not believe the rhetoric of George Bush, Dick Cheny and their underlings.* Many people think that the tour was of an Emperor going round his dominion and showing the diplomatic flag. It was the consolidation of the Empire that he is after.* Hence, the protests and in such large numbers. Any look at the protestors, the argument behind them and the kind of people they were would show that they are not lumpen elements; most of them were intellectuals and politically aware activists for one cause or another. Their protest or purpose cannot be written off. There are many in this country who share these views."

http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/june/paxamericana.htm

concluding
"let us look closely. The American War on Terrorism has made China retreat and has put Russia virtually under the thumb of George Bush and has pre-empted European role in Asia, both in the political and economic spheres. *Is this not the consolidation of an Empire that may be felt as stiffling?
* 

Walks like a duck
Talks like a duck
One naturally concludes..........it IS a duck.

Just so with American Empire circa 2003

If your fundamental premise that the US is not an Empire, is not shared and is very difficult to defend in light of the above world and US views that say otherwise, then it's equally difficult to entertain as valid your other suppositions.

••

Is Canada making a difference
"Martin said: "The world needs our values. The world needs us now. That is why we will be the first country in the world with legislation to open the door to increased export and production of patented medicines to help people suffering from HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB, among other diseases, in the developing world."
Yes

Is the US?...the answer is also yes, the US IS making differences.....but what are the nature of those "contributions"? Suspect? I would say the above articles and essays would support that view.

On the other hand I'm quite confident that Canada's approach is that of a good citizen of the world community.

I can't say that about the US currently.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc

*flail away all you like attempting to justify your tone but you haven't asked others....and it's just more of the same.*

Actually I have asked others. Have you? I bet there are people who agree with you, but that still doesn't mean the tone with which I am writing is intended to be the way you are reading it.

*How many First Nations people have you met that call themselves "Indians" ...your example here to illuminate your point is pretty close to the worst one you could possibly choose.*

Indian-Americans immigrate from India? If I had meant First Nations, I would have said First Nations, but in the context of immigration and nationalism, that would just be silly. Next time I will be sure to say 'east' for clarity.

Careful, it sounds like you are insinuating that my neck is the colour of beets.

*No empire?? *

There are many similarities between the Rome of old and the America of today, but you know what the main difference is? The US isn't conquering everyone, isn't rapidly expanding and fortifying it's borders. They do put their hands over their hearts though, which is interesting.

So far in the very recent past all they have done in this regard is displace two regimes and have a hard time cleaning up the mess they made in the process.

You know what though? None of it matters. As long as the US is the big dog on the block there will be people comparing them to the Romans, and every other old empire there was. If I had the patience for google, I am sure I could come up with just as many links and articles as you did that support my point too.

But since you _still_ haven't answered my question, I fail to see the point.

--PB


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - I'm pretty sure that PB meant Indian as in from India, not the natives. Not the best example in that you took you it the wrong way, but I know I immeadiatly understood it as an Indian-American, like the main character in Bend It Like Beckham is an Indian living in Englad, so she is an Indian Brit.

The US does not have an imperialistic empire. They do not control colonies as the British did in the 1700s right up until the mid 1900s. Although their actions do suggest them being the elephant with other countries being mice beside them having to be careful, the elephant is not controlling the mice. If the US wanted a global hegemony, why not take control either direct or indirect over every country? I don't see that this has happened, and although their sphere of influence may be large, IMO opinion it is a stretch to start calling the US influence an empire.

All 3 of those articles refer to a percieved empire, in that there are no real empires now, and the closest thing we have to one is a country with great influence throughout much of the world. Look at Bill Gates, people love him, people hate him. Same with the US.

However when it is said that the American forces are in 130 countries, most often it is neglected that many of these forces are there for aid, or peacekeeping. Not controlling colonists. However should the Americans have such a broad expanse of military in other countries? Maybe, as the largest military in the world, only they could, but is it in the nation's best interest? That's for another thread. The Americans approach isn't perfect, but then again there is no perfect solution to the problem the world faces now a days.

Comparing the Roman empire to the American "empire" (which I've already said isn't, and it only is if you believe whole heartedly in circumstantial evidence is always against the accused) is a stretch. We could compare Canada to the Nazis and draw parallels if we want, or even Bush's government with the Stalin's communist government. The Americans did not go out and conquer all the surrounding nations and control much of the civilized world as known then.

You quoted; "*A worldwide mass delusion of unprecedented scale*", I don't agree with the comment, but nor do I agree with your dimiss of said comment. The American empire is a misconception, fed quite easily through circumstantial evidence and general dislike for the historical American attitude. If you want to make a case that the Americans have an empire, go ahead, it isn't a true empire, but if having a massive sphere of influence and a willingness to use said influence when needed, then yes, the US is an empire. But I doubt a great deal of people will accept that given those terms.

The US is not an empire, it may walk seemingly like a duck at times, sound like one at times, but in reality, it's a goose. Similar but not quite.

Is Canada making a difference? Not much anymore. We have no military to do our famous peacekeeping operations, and although we may do many humanitarian deeds, anything the US does is often attacked as bribery or ways of controlling the country. But you do have to remember that many charities are based in the United States, and the United States population gives more money towards those kinds of charities then any other country in the world.

I can't say that the US's actions are perfect, but nor can I say that about Canada's. Anyone remember improperly tested malaria medicene that made American and CANADIAN peacekeepers murder civilians while in the Balkans? Or how Canada bungled the Arar affair?

They both have a great deal of work, although in many people's opinions, Canada does have a better platform, and less critics to start a building up off of.

As a closing remark, 

Do I support Bush? I'm undecided, although many of his actions have been deplorable (see visit to Queen of England) as of late, he is working very hard to set things right as he and his advisors can see them.

Also, a question about things that were stated that have lost me;
*Journalist Jay Bookman observed that the plan "marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that the plan attributes largely to the attacks of September 11, 2002."[1]* 
The attack took place September 11th, 200*1*, but that can be attributed to a typo, but I'm wondering where the [1] is supposed to be explained. Its left out, and makes what the author is trying to convey in that article harder to understand.

I was typing this as PosterBoy had posted his, so please excuse any overlap.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well said Chealion. As always.  

All I can add to this is the following observation:

If the US truly WERE an "empire"....then how much bigger would that empire be today if they had retained total control of their two conquered enemies from the second world war?

Japan and Germany are second and third on the list of the world's biggest economies. The US is number one.

Sounds like they missed the boat on that particular bit of "empire building", doesn't it?

The auto industry is the biggest single commercial enterprise in America. It is their pride and joy. So how come this "imperialist power" lets it's former enemies take away so much of this keystone of American industrial power?

There are many more examples I could also use. The US used to build more TV sets than all other countries in the world, combined. Now they build none.

But their citizens mail bucketloads of cash out to their former enemy and buy almost all of their TV sets from companies that are controlled by that former enemy...who attacked them without a formal declaration of war only sixty years ago. 

While the American factories wither and die.

Funny way to run an empire, eh?

Sounds more like market forces at work to me. And that's where the confusion comes from. People see the pervasive American culture invading almost every country and they start seeing "empire".

But it's not. It's just business.

And the Americans don't mind sharing. You just have to be better at it than they are, and they will flock to your products.

Just like in the old Peter Sellers movie "The Mouse that Roared"...the very BEST thing any country can do to improve it's lot in life is to attack the US and then LOSE.

They will inflict democracy and prosperity on you every time.  

And that, my friends, is not an "empire". Not by half.

It's just business.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion the US power structure in the world is "perceived" as an Empire both within it's own borders and without.

You may split hairs all you wish about hegemony, economic or cultural imperialism but the perception of those "hearts and minds" around the world and within the US itself is "Empire".

NOT " good world citizen first among equal"s who sees itself as one amongst others in a mutually respectful international community.

Rather than debate the exact nomemclature of the elephant those of you who perceive the US in a warmer light than mine (not particularly difficult) might do better by simply asking 
"What's wrong with a Pax Americana"
and that's an honest argument truer to the perceived reality of the world and the US itself that "there is no empire or ambitions of world hegemony"

This discussion began when I ranted about the enforced payment for carcinogenic additives and that it was an example of what I did not like about the American corporate culture and by extension the "our way or the highway" approach to it's place in the world.

Gerry would argue quite effectively that an American empire, a Pax Americana IS a terrific idea, bring it on, guns blazing if necessary. He's a red neck ( well almost there are some odd cracks in the facade ) and by and large his view is the same as many Americans which is why Bush has a chance in this coming election. 

If you are going to assess what the elephant might take umbrage at next and trample, then you look historically to it's approach to both internal strife and external "threats to security".
The US has a bloody record of interference, manipulation and flouting international bodies. So the world fears the consequences when someone like Bush gains power.

The race riots in Canada's past would be an exceedingly relevant reference to the current debate over racial profiling going on in Toronto in particular and in the country in general. I'm as incensed over current treatment by government bodies in Canada of First Nations and other minorities as I am over the US actions.
The issue here though is contextual relevance.

Canada is NOT a perceived threat either historically and in particular right now to the world stability and community. Referring to those race riots in this context has no relevance. Not that they have no significance in themselves but that there is no relevance in the discussion.

Now had the discussion, and it is one I'd like to see, been does the US OR Russia represent a greater threat to a peaceful world down the road, then BOTH internal and external histories would need looking at to see if there are clear indicators of where "adventurism" might lead.
I would be contending, and likely in the minority even world wide that the Russian people have learned, like others before, the horrible cost of imperial world ambitions and like Germany and Japan have put away a "warlike nature and culture" as a national "personality" or set of values to be cherished.. 
I would argue that the US has not yet learned the cost but may indeed be doing so as this unfolds....with Vietnam the first "wake up call" and this the second.

Internal and external history for both nations would play a large part in that discussion because both nations are or could be considered current world threats to the sovereignity of smaller nations, and peace and resepct amongst the the larger power structures.

Canada is not such a threat so the race riot background is not relevant "in the context of the argument here".

I DO think relevant that Canada is perceived as a nation where disparate peoples and viewpoints CAN get along in reasonable harmony and prosperity.

The export of that model to other peoples and nations trying to deal with a multi-cultural populace, through our statements and actions, is in my view a preferrable export than the one the US is currently touting and acting out.
That's what this thread is about.

••
PB I did read that as First Nation example and yes in my eyes your neck was in need of sun lotion.

And yes I HAVE now answered your question in detail. You may or may not agree but it's answered.

And yes your last post was very civilized.

•••

Chealion I have to be out for the rest of the day but in brief
"departure from the past policies" refers to the stated "strike first" policy of this regime.

That's the departure from past policy and that is a large part of the world concern.

••
Macnutt you are consistent but in the Pacific the attack on Pearl Harbor was RESPONSE to the US cutting off oil supplies.
It was designed not be an attackin the sense that Iraq attacked Kuwait but rather a blow to cripple ability of the US to project power in the Pacific while Japan secured the resources it needed for ITS empire.

They did so well they got greedy and instead of following their plan of a quick negotiated peace which would have altered the world dramatically ( the US was not in the European conflict and quite possibly would not have entered had Japan sued for peace quickly ).

But greed and ambition triumphed over wiser minds. The results were devastating.

One wonders about the outcoming of the shrubs "over arching ambition" to make the world a "safer place."


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macdoc - Yes, I agree an empire is percieved, but perception is most often set forth due to opinion. For example, the US percieved that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that were being actively developed and their development was a threat to national security. You'll be one of the first ones to say their perception was wrong. So you see perceptions can be flawed.

To further that point, perceptions can be flawed, and for all I know, mine could be flawed also, which is why it is a smart thing to go back every once in a while and re-evaluate where you are and what you are doing. It's even better to take a new look at the other side and try and see it with different eyes. Different perspectives lead to different perceptions (eg. The blind men and the elephant story).

I'll be one of the first to agree with you that as you put it; "[The US is not a] good world citizen first among equals who sees itself as one amongst others in a mutually respectful international community." They aren't perfect but they are the ones who have the jobof being the country everyone looks up to. More so economically and power wise then in ways to handle other countries.

I'm sorry but you lost me when you asked me to ask what's wrong with Pax Americana and how it is a truer argument then there is no empire. Assuming I understood you right, I agree Pax Americana is flawed, but it does have its good points, but such a plan as to ensure the national security of the Excited States of America, has to include other nations. Canada depends on other nations, to protect, cart around, and host our troops when going overseas. So I'm not seeing your point here, could you please clarify it?

The principles America was built on was so that the govenment would not meddle in the affairs of the business sector as much as possible. Although it was requited in the 1930s when FDR introduced the Alphabet Laws and other reforms to help combat the extreme boom and bust cycle that was occuring in the markets. Since then the government has controlled the business sector in order to avoid wide sweeping boom and bust cycles and protect consumers. (Interest Rate changes and safety standards for example.) I see the American government and the American business sector as different entities, since most businesses who do employ such tactics are often multinational, where they can get away with their activities. Like the Nike of old, although they had offices in the United States, the work was done in South East Asia where children were making the shoes. Although since Nike is based in the US, it isn't a perfect example, but it gives a good example showing a company that operates on 6 continents can bypass laws and just set up shop where the laws suit them. They are not an American company any more. They are a multinational corporation with headquarters around the world and several subsidaries, including Bauer which is headquartered in Montreal.

A little off topic, but who is Gerry? I don't know many people by their proper names, so if you can include screen names, it would be appreciated. 

Back on topic, there is always someone who thumbs their nose at those higher up, but as I've said before, what the US did was for a reason, and many of the reasons are never revealed due to their sensitive and covert nature. NO one wants to know that their country is an active player on the black market because they have to be. The back channels of diplomacy are a quagmire of semi-legalities.

Racial profiling and other racist pratices shouldn't be happening but they do. People learn prejudices over time due to circumstance and place, so the race riots were an attempt to overthrow this kind of problem. Yes, Canada has bungled its relationship with our First Nations, but even if the government bent over backwards, how is life on the reserves going to improve? Life on the reserves is quite depressing and money is most often used very wastefully.

Canada may not be a percieved threat (they've never seen our attack beavers in action, have they ?  ), but the race riots do have relevance in that they show that all countries have growing pains. Look at France during the French Revolution and the 5 different types of governments in a space of 10 years. They also show that making a multi-cutural nation is difficult, and different countries handle different cultures differently. Saying the United States murderous because they killed slaves when it was publically accepted around the world I find has less relevance. As PosterBoy said earlier; "It is only fairly recently that the people of Canada started 'celebrating our diversity'." Canada is not perfect, and saying that the US should handle other cultures like us isn't going to work, because of the different ways each government works.

I will agree that Canada's style is more preferable, but I said before, sometimes a hardnosed action must take place. Like the reason the War Measures Act was even made law that could be invoked for Canada. Diplomacy only works if both sides are willing to talk.

Strike first is not always the best course of action however, but I believe that the United States should try and go back to walking softly and carry a big stick again. And its quite likely that especially with so much cloak and dagger operations by the intelligence agencies, the big stick has had to come into play recently, for reasons the government doesn't want the public to know about.

Why did the United States cut off Japan's oil? Because Japan was invading nearby countries and slowly taking over the Pacific. In 1937, the Japanese took Manchuria, invading China, who was a US ally, and a democratic (but corrupt) nation. The US tried talking to the Japanese to get them to stop but the rising sun empire wanted an empire to control. It was an attack against the United States, and there was no way the US would have negotiated a truce with the Japanese. The Americans were hopping mad and afraid the Japanese would attack the main land. They work a sleeping giant who was walking softly and carried a big stick. A stick that would eventually include exploding atoms.

If I keep writing anymore I'll give macnutt a run for his money on long posts. 1100+ words should come close.  If the post seems a little fragmented, sorry as I was replying to macdoc's posts roughly paragraph by paragraph.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Absolutely outstanding, Chealion!   

I was about to clear up that little omission in macdoc's last post concerning why Pearl harbour was attacked. For some odd reason almost everyone in the left/lib camp always seem to leave out the fact that the US cut off Japans oil supplies because that country was busily invading the Asian mainland and leaving destruction in their wake. I guess it makes it easier to hate the Americans when you leave certain facts out of the argument and twist others a bit (probably why they all seem to like Michael Moore so much, too. He's a master at this)

Chealion, are you ever planning on running for higher office someday? I'm serious....we need good people with good judgement to run things around here. You've got what it takes, in spades! I'd vote for you.

No question about it.

(BTW chealion....I am Gerry. Some of us have had quite a bit of PM traffic back and forth and are on a first name basis. Sorry about the confusion.)


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macdoc,

If you think my neck is crimson it just goes to show that you never really paid attention to anything I have said here over the last two years.

So what you are saying is, recent Canadian history is out of context in a discussion of the current view of Canada, yet recent American history is in context in a discussion of the current view of America? 

You keep bringing up America's past as proof of their present, but when someone says 'Canada's record is a bit spotty too' you say 'that is out of context!'. How does this make sense?

--PB


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Canada's record is a bit spotty too. Yes - every one and every nation has their faults. But... can we just go back to this Pax Americana thing?

While I won't deny America has launched many great, good and noble enterprises, the US has also attacked more countries than any other nation since the end of World War II.

The various administrations of the United States have helped sow the seeds of international terrorism by supporting and arming extremist groups that temporarily served Washington's foreign policy interests at one point or another. Among the many examples of the United States making the bed it later had to sleep in, three individuals immediately come to mind: Manuel Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein.

As it turns out, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Iran's fundamentalist government, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden all have one thing in common: They all received funding and arms from Washington WHILE being linked to international terrorism.

The Reagan Administration supported Saddam at the same time Baghdad was sheltering international terrorist Abu Nidal and Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. At the same time the fundamentalist rulers in Iran [*] were receiving illegal arms shipments from the the US as part of a huge covert operation. Washington used the illegal proceeds from the arms sales to illegally fund the Contra rebels' terrorist campaign against Nicaragua's Sandinista government: The Iran-Contra scandal.

[*] ironically, because in 1979, U.S. economic policies and support for the Shah's dictatorial regime in Iran resulted in an anti-US, anti-West Muslim fundamentalist revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Also during the 1980's, the Reagan Administration supplied Afghanistan's Mujahedin rebels with massive amounts of aid and high-tech weaponry, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles, which helped the Muslim guerrillas overthrow the Soviet-supported Afghan government. Both the Taliban government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization evolved out of the CIA-supported Mujahedin rebel movement.

Who is the threat here?

I will end this by saying that the label "anti-American" has many meanings. I, personally, believe America IS the greatest nation on Earth. I just wish US leadership acted in a way that truly represented America's constitutional principles and its people.

Pax

[edit: this post is mostly plagiarised (without permission) from New Yorker Garry Leech's Columbia Report Online ]

[ December 11, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



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

I find it appalling that the Bush administration labels any dissent of their policies as being "anti-patriotic" or "anti-American". This includes any US politicians who dare to question the wisdom of invading Iraq. Add to this the childish retribution attitude of idiots like Paul Wolfowitz in banning dissenting countries from tendering for rebuilding contracts (while accepting substantial amounts of foreign aid from the same countries) - I can't help but feel the country is in poor hands.

I was in LA this week. The SuperState is in serious trouble and decline. Gray Davis may have been inept, but Arnie is proving to be a total ass. The public hospital system is on the brink of collapse. I didn't talk to one person in the healthcare industry who had any optimism or could see any way out. Arnie campaigned on the premise that the $14 billion debt problem could be solved by cutting waste. There was no back-up plan. He brought in a trusted group of financial whizzes who went through the books and declared there was no waste to cut. To exacerbate the issue, he has rolled back a gas tax that the counties were counting on (to the tune of another $700 million). Schools have nowhere to turn. In San Diego, the fire department has just canned a modernization plan - while the embers of the burbs are still smouldering. Arnies new solution is to post a bond to pay off the debt. Using one credit card to pay off another.

I find it utterly incomprehensible that a president who was elected by the narrowist of margins (we won't go there) has instigated the most dramatic and draconian changes in recent memory. The latest attempt to privatize Medicare is yet more evidence of the belief that the for-profit private sector is better able to deliver healthcare for the masses (as long as they don't get sick). Tell that to the bankrupt private hospitals that dump their complex cases on the public system.

A right wing religeous pressure group in DC has even managed to freeze NIH grants that fund studies of human sexuality and HIV. This is 16th century behaviour.

I've nothing against Americans whatsoever (many of my closest colleagues are American) but the current administration is on an ideological spiral that is inconsistant with rest of the civilized world. I truly hope that the people will see through the veil before the US plunges into a pernanent state of pathological paranoia and decay.

The world needs more Canada!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB
I said 
"I did read that as First Nation example and yes in my eyes your neck was in need of sun lotion."
Where does that infer that you ARE a *******.
My reading was wrong so my conclusion was wrong.








••
I answered your question about why the Canadian history is irrelevant to THIS discussion. I don't really care if you don't agree OR don't understand.
Your opinion or questions matter little ot me at this point. You are trolling, being combative for the sake of being combative and not adding a thing to the discussion.

••••
Chealion on the other hand IS making valid poiints and asking very reasonable questions even despite the noise from the SS Island monkey seats  

Chealion that was a large dose all at once  

"But perception is most often set forth due to opinion"

That's somewhat a tautology. Perception and opinion are generally one and the same in this context. "

What is my perception of the situation
vs
What is my opinion of the situation
Pretty close in use

If anything you have it reversed,
" perception INFORMS opinion "

However, it's one thing to be mistaken in assessing a situation, it's another to whip up support for invading a sovereign nation with little or no basis in fact especially when you are a superpower and doing so against the best advice of the bulk of the rest of your fellow nations.
Tony Blair and Bush contimnue to be taken to task severely for the "spin" they put on the information in order to whip up support in the populace for the invasion.

That's not being mistaken, that's being manipulative in the extreme and they are currently suffering the consequences.

When taken in conjuction with the "OIL' question it all stinks to high heaven.
•••••

" They aren't perfect but they are the ones who have the job of being the country everyone looks up to"

Are they the country everyone looks up to? - not everyone looks up to the US and many actively despise them. Ask a frenchman if he "looks up" to the US......were is Fr. Bertand....send him a note and see - would be very interesting.
•••
Re "truer"
Instead of debating whether the US is an empire or not, the question to be asked is " why not a Pax Americana, is that not a good thing?".
It presupposes there IS and empire or hegemony which from the world views shown above is it's considered a fact of our current geo-polity.

So debating the pros and cons of that is a valid discussion based on the reality that exists.

I can think of far worse "empires" that might have been or could come to be and many of my points in such a discussion would be supportive that IF we MUST hae a single Superpower we could do worse that the US.

It's the sanctimonious public approach combined with the insidious covert and "inner circle" imperial approach OF THE CURRENT REGIME that I find most threatening to the world stability.
It's this regine - not the US per sé - that is most dangerous. They have the POWER to be dangerous.

The US has continually swung back in forth between isolationism.
They almost did not enter WWII in part not wanting to get involved and in part because many thought Hitler not a bad guy and the the policies towards Jews quite all right thank you.
Varian's War is an excellent true story about this period.
Now Roosevelt knew better BUT because of the immense secrecy involved with Enigma and Magic was not at liberty to reveal everything and many US citizens wanted nothing at all to do with a "European problem".

I agree that American corporate culture, in particular American legal culture has it's own rapacious nature but it often takes it's cues from the government in power.

re Japan
I'm in no way condoning Japan's attack - Japan, England, American were all empires wrestling for power in China and Indonesia and it was one fateful step out of many that had preceded it.
Toland has written extensively about the lead up to the war in the Pacific and in fact claims convincingly that the war was unnecessary - that it was blundered into by both parties.
Some even claim the attack was provoked by FDR to get the US into the European war.

DAY OF DECEIT: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor 

by Robert B. Stinnett

Pearl Harbor was not an accident, a mere failure of American intelligence, or a brilliant Japanese military coup. It was the result of a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest levels of our government. According to a key memorandum, eight steps were taken to make sure we would enter the war by this means. Pearl Harbor was the only way, leading officials felt, to galvanize the reluctant American public into action 

http://www.liberty-tree.org/ltn/dayofdeceit.html 

sounds familiar eh....we'll just twist those perceptions and manufacture a "crisis"









Now I'm neither promoting or dismissing this view but for sure the wrestling match over imperial power in the Pacific had been going on since the 16th century when the Portugese and others first rounded the Cape.

The Opium Wars
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM 
is a shameful episode in that history and certainly China harbours resentment over that unbelievable almost genocidal attack. ( actively, purposefully addicting the population to opium...chemical warfare?? you bet )

That the US since WWII has been a reluctant imperial power speaks well for everyone in the long run.

The change to "strike first" 
- when you have an erratic cowboy, a bunch of hawks with an agenda, a deeply suspicious frightened populace being fed "spin" on the immediate dangers of terrorism 
- is deeply worrying to the rest of the world and to many Americans.

Hopefully that threat will be significantly reduced with a change of government next November















Wesley Clark strikes me as a responsible and world wise leader and he and Dean should be able to ameliorate the world opinion but nothing will undo the rats nest of Iraq.

But the world community would likely work far closer with that team to help in the middle east. Clark's experience and contacts as Nato Commander and as being a "real soldier and commander" instead of the "jump suit flyboy" currently in power, will be very welcome.

You may have confidence in the current US admin.

I don't. 
I'll be glad when it's gone.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

> If anything you have it reversed, "perception INFORMS opinion "


Or... maybe opinion is the "output" and perception is the "input". maybe Opinion and Perception influence each other...

Take Bush's turkey photo. 

Some might see: A brave leader taking the opportunity to provide for his troops - and keep the enemy at bay.

My perception: a fake president with a fake turkey taking the opportunity to manufacture campaign material while making a desperate gesture to keep mutiny at bay.

Is that because we perceive the photo differently? Or because our opinions are influencing the way we look at the picture?

Or is it that, like Bush, we just like a good fight!


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

jwoodget - Yes, the world needs more Canada. The only problem I see with it, is that in many countries what works here won't work there. As there (being nearly any other country) is not a land of immigrants, but usually of a large indigenous culture. If this can be overcome, I can see the influence of Canada's great peaceful image will make changes in other countries.

macdoc - I have to disagree with you that PB isn't making valid points, going back along the thread, sans the ******* insinuations his posts are most often there to provide an alternate viewpoint then that of your own. I don't agree with everything PB says, just as I don't agree with everything you say. Canada's History isn't the end all and be all in this discussion, but it does show that we aren't perfect and we have had our set of problems (see the turning away of the S.S. St. Louis, Japanese Internment, Native children sent to residential schools.)

That aside, macdoc, I did not find my sentence a tautology, I would compare it more to a chicken and egg scenario. You can't have one without the other. They are almost synonymous in most contexts. It is quite easy for a misinformed opinion to change your perception. 

Whipping up support, and gaining public approval is a key in being able to make touchy decisions slide more easily, and although you feel that Bush and Blair were wrong, what else could they have done (under the pretense they wanted to get Hussein out as fast as possible, preferably before the attacks of 2001 became even more forgotten)

When you refute my sentence; "They aren't perfect but they are the ones who have the job of being the country everyone looks up to", I purposely added the sentence following it to clarify my intentions of that sentence. "More so economically and power wise then in ways to handle other countries." I intended to place the emphasis on the economic power of the United States along with their ability to hold a great deal of sway in the world through their actions and influence. (eg. Kyoto accord, when the US said no, many people who were on the fence but leaned towards no, jumped onto the no bandwagon.) I hope you understand more clearly what I was referring to. You and I both know everyone loves the US. Although some love to hate them, but they still love them for some reason or another.

You ask, "why not a Pax Americana, is that not a good thing?", and although it holds lofty ideals of peace under the leadership of the United States, its not going to happen under anyone (at least not really.) The best anyone will be able to get is a perceived peace. You can say it does suppose an empire, but in this day and age, the empire you talk about is not an empire like any other. The Romans, and the British had empires that spanned great distances, where they had direct control over the regions. It became an extended appendage of the mother country. The United States' "empire" is nothing like that. Just because you have a great deal of power and influence does not mean you control other nations. Anyone is allowed to disagree with the United States. Although I have to point out that Saddam Hussein went beyond disagreeing with the United States. He was openly antagonistic, so saying that if you disagree with the States and you will be invaded is a very large stretch in my books. To address the counter argument that if you disagree with the United States you won't get say the contracts, well why should you? You didn't do any work, so why should money be handed to you? It doesn't make much business sense. However the US gladly accepting monetary aid in order to help rebuild Iraq and then not allow contracts for that help is a double standard, and is most definitely a mistake. It also sounds from the latest reports that it may be overturned. Although what is wrong with sub-contracts? 

The current regime may be more dangerous then others, but what about John F. Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis? Had he not stood his ground, how much farther would have the USSR gone? Had he not insisted on not using military force, and doing his best to get the issue solved diplomatically (using back channels a great deal), how else could we have gotten to where we are today?

As a country, you can't lose face, even if it may be the right decision, losing face is tantamount to treason, and the resolution for the Cuban Missile Crisis allowed both nations to get out of the crisis without losing a great deal if any of face.

I do not believe Robert B. Stinnett's thesis that the United States orchestrated the murder and near decimation of its Pacific Fleet. I don't see that happening back then, and nor do I see George Bush orchestrating 9/11 in order to kill citizens and gain sympathy. To do something like that requires a deadened conscience, and its very apparent George Bush does not have a deadned conscience but he has one. Some say it is misguided, but it is most definitely one he pays attention to fervently. For him, what he plans to do to protect his country is black and white. He believes what he does, and intends to stop the evil in this world before it has another chance to murder innocent civilians in North America again.

I have confidence in the American government, why? Because I don't have control over them. It is out of my control, and something for me to accept and adapt to. And I believe they are doing what they feel is right. It is also your right to provide alternative viewpoints and question what they do. That is after all the purpose of a democracy is it not?

I do have to add however, that macdoc you sure make me work to come up with what I can. I just wish I knew more about the issues. Especially more about the backdoor dealings and the small things that make all the difference in the large decisions that few know about.


----------



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

Chelion, you say you have confidence in anything you cannot control. I frankly don't understand this principle. Do you control Al Queda?

Despots rely on repression and intimidation for their control. They dismiss or cripple criticism. They do not tolerate dissent. Mugabe is every bit as bad as Hussein but no one cares becauses there's nothing at stake that they care about. 

Respect must be earned and the US administration lacks the respect of much of the free world, including many within its own borders. Indeed, I would hope that the American electorate remembers that it can exert control over whom it elects.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

jwoodget - The idea is a bit abstract, but I am confident in Al Queada also. They will do what they want to do it is out of my control. It doesn't make much sense unless you look at it specifically from the idea of accepting anything outside of your control and trusting that the powers that be outside of your control know what they are doing. Personally I think of it like my dentist with a drill, I have to place complete trust in my dentist that he isn't going to kill me or shave off my whole tooth. Abstract, but it makes sense from accepting what is outside of your control. Although I believe the viewpoint is a little naive, but have not learnt yet what is a "better" viewpoint without becoming bitterly cynical or depressed about how insignificant a single human being can be.

macnutt - I'm just not as knowledgable as I wish I could be. I feel rather outranked by macdoc, but reading his viewpoint and comparing to what I've known I can get a better grasp on what happens. Though personally I prefer the why.

macdoc - Perception may usually start the cycle, but once it has started, it does become an ever revolving door, as opinions and a person's perception evolve as they aquire new knowledge and (more preferably) wisdom.

You see the US as a nation being led astray by a cowboy, I see the US as a nation being led down a trecherous path by a leader who doesn't know the word give up (and at times tact).

The amount of hidden workings and secret work during World War 2 was extensive, manipulation of the media, and secrets not revealed for years (Ultra/Enigma for example), do hint that there is much, much more behind the facts that are so easily touted in a grade school textbook. But I find it very hard to believe a president could willfully help indirectly orchestrate such an attack. It's possible it was something that grew out of their control, but everything is cause and effect.

I do know that horrific acts have occured where National Guard soldiers have shot students, just as the Chinese tank ran over students protesting in Tiananmen Square. The cause behind such events is most often forgotten, especially one where the government has had to draw the line, or a representative of the government (this case a soldier) on their own behalf took matters into their own hands. It is tragic, but as I've said before life is simply complex. Once the pieces are in place, it goes from point A to point B simply and logically, but how these pieces can fall together in just such a way is immensely complex.

Yes, the hard earned and fought for rights and freedoms can be eroded slowly over the years due to abuse by both sides. (Largely the extremists of the government and those who want total freedom eg. anarchy).

It is true that such intelligence can be mind numbing, but I find it hard to believe that the US President could have been willing to allow the entire Pacific fleet to dock in Pearl Harbor and not send some of its ships back towards the mainland or something. It's inconcievable that the President didn't (assuming he wanted the incident) try to either move some ships out or do something to reduce the loss of life.

It isn't only the US however who is involved in the trade and gathering of intelligence, ever since WWII, each country has developed an intelligence agency (CIA, NSA in the States, CSIS in Canada, the Mossad in Israel, M5 in the UK, etc.).

Knowing what is going to happen is the most valuable commodity people can get, why else do you think spy movies are so intriguing? We know that knowing what will happen is the best advantage you can get. (Most of the time anyway.)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

After reading all that Chealion has written on this thread so far....and after realising that this guy is _not even twenty yet_ !!!

Does everyone now know why I am such a big fan of this lad??   

Too cool Chealion! Keep writing. I'm listening! (this guy ROCKS!!)

I bet a whole bunch of others are listening too.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm going to reply to a few points from a lot of people and jump around a *little* bit, so I am not going to include all the names. Apologies in advance for the sheer length of this, but there has been a lot said since I was last here.

*Your opinion or questions matter little to me at this point. You are trolling, being combative for the sake of being combative and not adding a thing to the discussion.*

If wanting to understand a double standard, however unrelated to where the discussion has evolved to, is trolling then yeah, I suppose I was. But since we both seem fed up with the point, lets move on to other things.

*As it turns out, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Iran's fundamentalist government, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden all have one thing in common: They all received funding and arms from Washington WHILE being linked to international terrorism.*

This is true, but at the time America was more concerned with the spread of communism than terrorism. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' as the saying goes. I'm not trying to excuse giving them weapons, it is just that at the time I am sure the general feeling was that aiding the enemies of communism was more important, and probably they figured that after having given them aid, these countries wouldn't turn around and attack them (or at least posture like they might).

It was a gamble, and in the short run it paid off (Afghanistan did effectively repel the USSR after all), but like all gambles it came back to bite them in the ass.

*Add to this the childish retribution attitude of idiots like Paul Wolfowitz in banning dissenting countries from tendering for rebuilding contracts (while accepting substantial amounts of foreign aid from the same countries)*

Realistically, while it is annoying, I would have to say I agree with them giving most or all of the contracts to coalition members. They after all were the ones doing all the work. Canada said we wanted no part of it and I guess what we failed to realise is that we'd get no part of it _at all_.

Besides, shouldn't they have to clean up their own messes? What I am more interested in was how the US was awarding rebuilding contracts to American companies for areas that the British did all the ground work in without even really consulting the Brits.

*Although what is wrong with sub-contracts [in Iraq]? *

The main contracts will make whoever wins them a hell of a lot more money, that's all.

*it's one thing to be mistaken in assessing a situation, it's another to whip up support for invading a sovereign nation with little or no basis in fact especially when you are a superpower and doing so against the best advice of the bulk of the rest of your fellow nations. [...] When taken in conjuction with the "OIL' question it all stinks to high heaven.*

But at the time I believe they believed Saddam did have WMDs, I just think they were wrong. What bothers me is that many, many people are still saying "It was all about the OIIIIILLL!!!" when they should be saying "Why didn't they try to get better intelligence?" or "Did they believe it because they wanted to, or because it was presented from good sources?".

But regardless of the reason, Saddam is gone and that is a good thing. Like I said many, many times while the war was going on I agreed that Saddam needed to be removed (and honestly was a little surprised more people didn't support them), but I was never sure that the US was going about it the right way. If they'd come from a "He's a bad man who does, and will continue to do bad things" standpoint instead of a "he _might_ attack us" standpoint, I think they might have gotten more support too.

Of course, this opens up a whole can of worms in that if Saddam was bad enough to attack, why aren't they liberating any other countries living under despots?

*[...] the question to be asked is " why not a Pax Americana, is that not a good thing?". It presupposes there IS and empire or hegemony which from the world views shown above is it's considered a fact of our current geo-polity.*

Empire perceived in empire achieved?

I don't think the US is an empire, or that they are imperialist. If they were an imperialist state they'd be taking over countries and forcing religious change as well as changing the direction of the economy to support the US, and the US alone. Iraq as an example, is being rebuilt to support itself and will be given back to the people eventually. Problem is they can't seem to tell how long it is going to take (but it will be too long for many, many people).

Is Pax Americana a bad thing? I am not so sure. I'd rather Pax Americana than Pax China (being the only other super-duper power, or at the very least will be soon), and at least someone is trying to do something about the state of the world that isn't just so much political posturing. Granted, I am not a big fan of the way things have gone down so far necessarily, but at least something was done.

*They almost did not enter WWII in part not wanting to get involved and in part because many thought Hitler not a bad guy and the the policies towards Jews quite all right thank you.*

Not exactly, I don't think they ever thought Hitler was all right they just thought that he wasn't their problem to deal with.

*DAY OF DECEIT: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert B. Stinnett
Pearl Harbor was not an accident, a mere failure of American intelligence, or a brilliant Japanese military coup. It was the result of a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest levels of our government. According to a key memorandum, eight steps were taken to make sure we would enter the war by this means. Pearl Harbor was the only way, leading officials felt, to galvanize the reluctant American public into action *

The thing about Stinnetts book is that it is all based on circumstantial evidence, even according to it's Amazon.com write up. 
<blockquote>Stinnett's argument draws on both circumstantial evidence--the fact, for example, that in September 1940 Roosevelt signed into law a measure providing for a two-ocean navy that would number 100 aircraft carriers--and, more importantly, on American governmental documents that offer apparently incontrovertible proof that Roosevelt knowingly sacrificed American lives in order to enter the war on the side of England</blockquote>

The fact that it ends up being largely editorial, that is based on his opinions of what must have happened doesn't help either, and according to at least one reader it has some fairly important factual errors as well:

<blockquote>His proof consists of an exhaustive analysis of the records of American intercepts of Japanese military radio transmissions. Stinnett claims that U.S. cryptographers had broken all the important Japanese Navel codes well before December 7th and that the decrypted transmissions combined with radio direction findings not only enabled the Administration to know when the attack would come but where the attacking Japanese fleet was located. The standard histories of World War II hold that the U.S. did NOT crack the Japanese codes (except for the diplomatic "Purple" code) before Pearl Harbor and that, in the weeks before the attack, U.S. intelligence lost track of the Japanese fleet.
[...]
One can grant that U.S. intelligence was poorly coordinated and should have understood more than it did, but for Stinnett to use his 20/20 hindsight to accuse FDR of deliberately permitting the Pearl Harbor attack is appalling. It isn't even logical. Stinnett himself concedes that FDR actually wanted to go to war with Germany. How could FDR have imagined that a Japanese attack in Hawaii would bring the U.S. into war with Germany? It took Hitler's greatest blunder to accomplish that. Are we to believe FDR not only had foreknowledge but clairvoyance as well?</blockquote>

*Was Pearl Harbour part informed "look the other way" despite evidence of an impending attack?? Given what the Allies knew, what the eight people knew...it could be. Read more, inform yourself BEFORE you harden that opinion.*

The thing to do is read _all_ sides though, because realistically they are all jaded by opinion and personal beliefs. You can read as many books as you like, but if they are all defending the same point of view then you are no better off than when you started.

*I'm just not as knowledgable as I wish I could be. I feel rather outranked by macdoc, but reading his viewpoint and comparing to what I've known I can get a better grasp on what happens. Though personally I prefer the why.*

Chealion, from what I have read you are doing just fine, and personally I think you are on the right track looking for the 'whys' of events as opposed to the 'whats'. The thing to do is no matter what conclusions you end up making keep an open mind. History is littered with those who believed their opinion was the only right one and only learned near the end that an opinion is just an opinion, not a fact.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

WOW...now THAT was some post!!  

Very astute and very well-informed...right down to the smallest details.

PosterBoy, I am slightly in awe of both you and Chealion.  

Both of you have dazzled me in recent days! (and BOTH of you have astounded me in the past)

There is a time in every persons life...it happens in their late thirties or early forties...when they come to think that the generation that came after them is not worth a sour fart. They begin to imagine that they are the very LAST generation that actually gives a sh*t about anything that matters.

At that point, they think that the whole civilisation that they have helped to build is going to hell in a hand basket. Big Time!  

There is NO hope for the future, none at all!! 


And then two guys like YOU come along.  

And we suddenly realise that the next generation is not all that bad. In fact...we begin to see that the ones that have come after us are quite capable of carrying on.

Or, perhaps, even IMPROVING things!  

Gives us all a big warm fuzzy. No sh*t!  

Please continue on your path. You now have an official cheering team from the generation that arrived before you.

You guys ROCK!!!  

And PLEASE keep talking! I'm listening....I bet a LOT of others are too! 

[ December 13, 2003, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jwoodget, Mugabe is "off the radar" for most of the westernised nations even though he is a reprehensible despot. The reasons are that, even at his very worst (which would be right about now, BTW) he cannot adversely affect many people outside of his sorry state.

Also, anyone from a non-African nation who points out how bad Mugabe is, and wants to actually DO something about it, will be instantly labeled as "RACIST"....and that will spark outrage in a whole segment of the population.

You know...the ones who are pretty much sleepwalking through life waiting to be outraged by some percieved sleight. They wake up when their handlers call out the alarm...and then take up protest signs and march en masse, loudly demanding "justice".

It's no wonder that most world leaders won't touch the situation in Zimbabwe with a ten foot pole. They can't win...no matter WHAT they do about it.

It's a compliment to the Brits that they even attempted to point out the problem to the rest of the Commonwealth.

You can't compare Saddam and Iraq with Mugabe and Zimbabwe. Too many variables. Too different.


And Chealion....did I hear you say that you "weren't clear on all of the issues involved?"  

Not from where I sit, laddie! Yer doin just FINE!  

Keep talking, you are making a whole lot of sense as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Used to be - thank you those were both good posts tho I'm disappointed in Arnie's situation.
It will depend on how he sucks it up, just as McGuinty has to do here. Reality bites.

I don't think the bond idea is bad as infrastructure is appropriately funded by bonds. We DO need some long term thinking and long term funding.
Better a firestation than another dot.com bubble  

re tautology - as I said it's not quite a tautology but you HAVE to "perceive" BEFORE you CAN form an opinion.
If you walk into a museum blindfolded you cannot form an opinion of the objects,the displays the rationale.

Once seen, an opinion may be formed, it may then be altered by a realization that the original perception is wrong. But you need the original perception. Look at this 









*Can you guess this woman's age? Keep looking at the picture and see it change.*  

Hindu religion says the world is an illusion and WE differentiate. But that's another whole argument about dualism.

Empires have been and are of various natures and certainly the US is a hegemony which to a large degree amounts to the same thing. I don't find it useful to split hairs about it since the people around the world affected by it see the US in that light.

Pax Americana may be a good thing for the world with a more responsible, responsive and respectful group in power in the US.
The danger I perceive is not the US per se but the US with it's current unchallenged level of power, a cowboy at helm and a group of doctrinaire hawks advising him.

Before you dismiss Stinnett so cavalierly you may want to read things like Body Guard of Lies and some of Tolands works.

We all believed Churchill's memoirs about the Battle of Britain etc before the world realized that they were a cover for the incredible intelligence coup that ACTUALLY won the war. Orwell warned about it in 1984 ( he could not talk about it openly so he wrote a cautionary tale ).

Would you have believed the US National Guard would shoot university students on their own campus.  

The world and the forces that struggle over time are often far more violent and sinister than our day to day existence would indicate.

People have an amazing capacity to get on with their everyday lives yet underneath the day to day, their freedoms, hard won over centuries, can be eroded.

13 days looked like an eyeball to eyeball showdown with the USSR blinking - yet it was the "unofficial deal" on the Turkish missiles that resolved it finally.

For the longest time in the early part of WWII only EIGHT people in the entire world knew the full extent of the intelligence picture - Roosevelt and Churchill were two and they didn't want Stalin in the know.
Eight people








The extent of the intellgence was unbelievable and a great burden to them.
Yet that level of control over the "free world" allowed them to blind Germany and Japan, feed them misinformation and actually listen as that information trickled through and in the case of Britain really truly saved them.

In the Pacific the key architect of the Japanese war plan Yamamoto was shot down by two US planes who "happened" to be in the right place.
That was the story for many years.

The truth...through Magic the Allies knew exactly when and where and took him out.

Was Pearl Harbour part informed "look the other way" despite evidence of an impending attack?? 
Given what the Allies knew, what the eight people knew...it could be. Read more, inform yourself BEFORE you harden that opinion.
There is a long history of creating "incidents".

Read up on the entry of the US into the war and also on the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan project - the Vice President of the US was kept in the dark  yet it was the largest engineering project the world had ever undertaken. The Pulitzer prize book The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a fascinating read as the ethics of what they were doing struggled with the immense technical and scientific challenges.

Secrecy is an amazing weapon. 
The 6 Day War was stopped by taking photos of the battlefield from the Blackbird and showing them to both sides.
Neither side had any idea how it was done but it became the basis for the cease fire.

Makes you wonder what goes on deep in the undercurrents these days. It's another aspect of the US the world fears tho is fascinated by.


----------



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

I'm sorry Chealion, but I think you are confusing trust with confidence and control. I trust my dentist and the guy flying the aircraft but I don't trust George W. or Osama bin Laden. While there are lots of things in life that we, as individuals, cannot control, that does not mean we cannot influence these things if we act together. I strongly believe that the public demonstrations against the invasion in Iraq made a difference with respect to Canada staying out of the mess. Of course, the equally powerful UK demonstrations did not, but that's Blair's legacy to deal with. I think its incredibly dangerous to allow delegation of authority without active responsibility. By having confidence in things you cannot control requires that you DEMAND responsibility from those same people. That's why people sue their dentists if they screw up. So, don't underestimate your authority. By vesting that authority in others, you have a right to hold them responsible.

PB, the ridiculousness and small-mindedness of the Bush admins exclusion of non-coalition forces is revealed by countries such as Iceland (with no armed services) and Eritrea being on the list of allowed bidders when Canada contributed 3 warships to the gulf (along with those weapons of mass humiliation - the Sea Kings) along with a significant presence to Afghanistan. This is typical childishness from the Wolfowitz crowd. It is hardly forward looking and is simply an extension of the "You're with us or you're against us" binary philosophy that the administrations simple minds have to reduce everything down to. Interestingly, several "coalition" members did not wish to declare themselves at the time but the list of eligible bidders includes these countries such as Saudi Arabia. I wnder how long it will be before the US "intervenes" in a regime change there (when the policy has shifted from anti-Communism to anti-terrorism to anti-energy shortage)?

As for Halliburton overcharging for Iraqi contracts, well, I guess it's difficult to be so efficient in covering your butt when half of your executive team is in the White House. 

More interestingly is the fact that Iraq has about $100 billion in outstanding debt. The Bush administration has James T Baker doing the rounds to ask countries (such as Russia, the UK, France, Germany, etc) to forgive this debt to help Iraq get back on its feet so that rebuilding can occur. Baker has direct ties to Halliburton, the principle private beneficiary of any economic benefit to Iraq through his legal practice in Texas. Conflict of interest? Nah - at least not by Bush standards.

I have to applaud the consistency of these comedians.

P.S. I've nothing against posting bonds for financing intrastructure (because the future pay-off returns the capitol) but Arnie wants to post a bond to pay off the California deficit for this year. Not a piece of infrastructure in sight and does nothing to address next years deficit (unless he posts another bond to pay off the first....). Since Californians are apparently unwilling to underwrite their future by paying for what they need through taxes, why should anybody else?


----------



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

BTW, as I understand the argument from macnutt, it's OK to be a despicable despot as long as you don't stand on the toes of anyone important. That is precisely the reason that Saddam Hussein was allowed to get away with murder for so long. Then, when politically convenient, the ceiling literally collapses on him (or it would have if the US hadn't kept screwing up). No wonder Hussein couldn't understand why the US picked 2003 to invade and why his remonstration that WoMD really didn't exist fell on deaf ears. Not that I feel sorry for the bastard, any more than we should let Mugabe continue to exert his corrupt regime.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Thought this to be quite the funny illustration:









How the US sees the world:


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

jwoodget - I know what I meant to say, but what I wrote is not what I meant. Something didn't go from my brain to my fingers, and now taking a more serious look at it, I was more or less wrong. I have confidence in people, because they are going to do what they set out to do, but that is rather pointless. I have to go back and look at it more closely and iron out many a detail. Having confidence in Al Qaeda is rather dubious at best, but I do have confidence that they will try to do what they want to. So I do have to retract any statements about the confidence issue, as I'm not sure where I stand very well anymore. When I do, then I can come back to the issue.  

Also, it is unfortunately true that other countries will not intervene within another until the country is a threat to other nations especially when it is obvious that the citizens are having their human rights trodden on. But as macnutt pointed out, even with such good reason to enter and liberate the country, you still lose. (Just look at Iraq, though many people believe that the real reason is oil, but we'll ignore it for the purpose of the example. That is only to show that liberating a country comes with a great deal of dissent not matter what happens.)

ehMax - Very interesting map! Although I believe it is a very dumbed down version of what the US sees, but one could say it is a good representation of where the United States' interests lie in the world.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion
"Also, it is unfortunately true that other countries will not intervene within another until the country is a threat to other nations especially when it is obvious that the citizens are having their human rights trodden on"

This is the heart of the issue and it involves sovereignity as well as respect for differing cultures and legal systems ( Quebec has a different legal base than the rest of Canada). There is no easy answer. We've even had a problem intervening in domestic violence for the longest time and that's far easier than interfering with a nationstate.

Until there is a Charter for the world and an INDEPENDENT body to enforce it, it will continue to be a serious issue.

As to "confidence".
I agree your thought process is doing a "drunkards walk" toward something but it's unclear what that something may be ( seee below I had a bit more insight later into a possibility ).

Initially it sounded like a form of fatalism which is a dangerous path for anyone with ambition but can also keep your stress rate low  

I take the approach that I trust people and groups until shown otherwise. *"Assume the best, prepare for the worst"* is not a bad guideline.
It's a balance between naivety and healthy skepticism.

Currently the US is on the "proven otherwise" side of the equation - this article today is mind bending, even his own political spectrum don't know what to make of him.

*"How to alienate your friends, at home and abroad*

Puzzling actions leave even neo-con backers wondering

TIM HARPER

Here's how you make friends in George W. Bush's world.

You bar countries from sharing in some $18.6 billion (U.S.) in Iraqi reconstruction contracts, then later the same day, you pick up the phone and ask the leaders of those very countries to be nice to your personal envoy, James Baker, when he comes calling this week asking you to forgive the money Iraq owes you.

Here's how you welcome your northern neighbour's new prime minister.

You let your official spokesperson say how much you look forward to working with Paul Martin, then you make sure Canada is similarly shut out of reconstruction contracts, ignoring the financial help from Ottawa and the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan fighting your war on terrorism.

Here's how you keep Europe guessing.

You send your defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to meet with the counterparts he once dismissed as "old Europe" and have him extend an olive branch, leading to widespread speculation that the U.S.-Europe rift is on the mend.

Then, you yank on the stitches by poking fun at German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's suggestion that your reconstruction policy could violate international law by glibly saying, as Bush did Friday: "International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me."

And here's how to alienate your neo-con base.

You make a major speech on the quest for democracy in the Middle East, calling it your Number 1 priority and saying your work must be continued by successive presidents for decades to come.

Then, a couple of weeks later, when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao comes calling, you make him happy by telling Taiwan it cannot hold a democratic referendum."...........more

Baffling week for Bush watchers 

and this

Nine tales of a society scared into stupidity  

You mentioned "years" in losing hard won freedoms. Months would be more accurate.

I've personally seen the same arrogance and ignorance at the border, absolute distain and far more often than warranted I see non- whites in for inspection. I have no problem with an office doing an inspection but I would and everyone should insist on courtesy and respect and while many border officers are paragons of patience there are too many who look at their uniform as a licence for ignorant behaviour.
If it happens, complain to the supervisor - YOU might get hassled for your next 20 crossings as it's a closed shop too often but the officer WILL get a reprimand and that counts. He or she ( I've seen both ) just might think twice next time about their behaviour.....that pension eh.

••••••
BTW Chealion, your approach to gaining perspective is just fine - keep the reading wide and varied and really try to get outside your culture with your reading and information choices. A useful exercise I find is to try and empathize rather than demonize.
Look at the roots of problems from alternative perspectives.
In doing so it's pretty quickly evident, in my view, that there are no easy answers - in fact in some cases there may be no solution at all in expecting dramatically differing cultures (like Israel and Palestine) with huge gradients in wealth, outlook, education - to come to a peaceable, workable solution.

Accepting that there are somethings you can't solve, can't change, then leads you to being effective and thoughtful about the many things you can.
That MIGHT be an aspect of what you were trying to describe in your "confidence" thoughts.

Instead of "confidence" in BinLaden you might phrase it you are * "relying"* on BinLaden to act in a certain manner and realizing that nothing you do will alter his actions in a meaningful manner. He becomes something you MUST factor into your worldview - like gravity being a constant in figuring how to climb a mountain - it's a factor you cannot ignore and cannot change.

The term confidence implies approbation. Instead using "relying" in this context you could say *he's a fact of life that's not in my power to alter so I have to conduct my affairs with his potential for violence in mind.*
That might be what you were driving at.

If it is, then I'd say to you look first at why and intelligent wealthy leader like Bin Laden undertakes his actions.
Idi Amin was a madman so that explains ( never justifies) some of his horrendous actions. I don't believe Bin Laden is mad, driven maybe, but not mad or insane.

If that's the case, then dialogue and solution may be possible even if not probable. Addressing the roots of the conflict becomes profitable if even only for one's own understanding.
My 85¢ worth  

•••
JW I didn't realize it was a general bond - I thought a bond was always in theory at least hard backed lending where typically there were assets that in threory could be seized.
I guess they could post Yosemite as a bond. Bears are worth a lot on the open market







 
I haven't been following the aftermath and appreciate the heads up.

[ December 14, 2003, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



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

Chealion,

Given the level of intelligence and open-mindedness typically demonstrated through your postings, I was somewhat disappointed in your thoughts on confidence (a classic example of a mindf**k?) in Bush, et al. and so laid a bit of a trap which you walked into. Your last post reassured me that you are who I thought you were. I apologise for the trickery but hope that you'll keep questioning everything. It keeps people honest. Indeed, its the only mechanism we, as individuals, have to maintain one's sense of perspective. You can't win a person's loyalty without winning their mind. That's why Iraq is a mess. There is no respect for the Iraqis that have been "liberated". Until that happens, the US will find continual opposition. It's what happened in Vietnam and to the British in Northern Ireland.

We have been too willing to second this questioning to the press but too often journalists have fallen into their own traps of sycophantasy and Pavlovian responses. Let no one speak for you without first earning your trust and never let anyone assume they have your respect unless they are willing to continuously demonstrate that is the case.

Sorry for sounding patronizing - that wasn't the intent. Rather, it is your generation to whom we fossils look for hope. Demand accountability from everyone in authority no matter what area of life. Do not derelict that responsibility as it is the basis of democracy. Too few people under 30 vote yet it is their futures that are at the mercy of the current politicians.


----------



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

jwoodget, I tried something with my undergrad class this semester, which highlights your comment that "Too few people under 30 vote yet it is their futures that are at the mercy of the current politicians." 

At the time of our provincial election this fall, I asked my students to state publically if they had actually voted. Of a class of 41, 13 had voted. I told these 13 students to remain seated and asked the others to go out in the hall and discuss whatever they wanted to talk about for 10 minutes. Inside the class, I gave these 13 students the opportunity to ask any and all questions they might have about the final, although I did not guarantee them an answer to these questions. 

After 10 minutes, the rest of the class returned. I told them what I had done, and a few were a bit upset. I told them that if they don't vote, they still have the right to speak, but that their voices will never be heard by most politicians. However, even those that do vote may or may not have their voices heard and questions answered. Many just sat there nodding their heads in agreement.

For the record, I had a day when any and all students could ask me specific questions about my final exam. All but three showed up for the class, but oddly, only a few asked questions about the exam.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim...the differences between Mugabe and Saddam are many and varied. It's quite clear why Iraq was invaded and Zimbabwe hasn't been. I'll try and clear it up for you:

#1) Saddam has been a major threat to all sorts of people besides his own. He has started several major wars in his region and had one of the largest standing armies in the world. He also had massive amounts of conventional weapons stashed all over the country and has been documented by the UN as having constructed and deployed weapons of mass destruction in the recent past.

You can't say any of this about Mugabe.

#2) The rising amounts of terrorism in Saddam's region has recently spilled outward and hit North America.

Hard.

The resons for this are many, but much of it can be blamed on Arabs who are terribly unhappy that they seem to be deadlocked into a life of total poverty while the rest of the world moves forward all around them. This is doubly upsetting for them because there is so much wealth just beneath their feet. And they know it. They can't blame themselves (they have no voting power under dictatorships and do not control anything about the direction of their own lives or that of their country), and they dare not openly blame their despotic leaders....so they lash out at the Great Satan. In terrible ways. And there seems to be no shortage of desperate young people in that region who are willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up while trying to kill what they have been told is the source of their torment.

Again, none of this applies to Mugabe or Zimbabwe.

#3) Iraq is the heart of the middle east, and has all of the necessary ingredients to make the leap into full democracy. The population is very well educated and there is more than enough money from the oil to become a truly modern society. Seeing that an Arab country can sucessfuly transform itself and live in prosperity and freedom would kick the legs out from under most of the arguments that the bad guys are using to get young people to blow themselves up.

Zimbabwe, on the other hand, USED to be a modern and prosperous democracy, before Mugabe. And it doesn't export terrorism nowadays, even though the people are pretty destitute right now.

There is no way to equate Zimbabwe under Mugabe with Iraq under Saddam. Apples and oranges. 

Sorry.


----------



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

Thanks for the attempt at differentiating fruit macnutt, but you are, in essence, simply justifying strategic greed. For over 20 years, Hussein exported war and internal strife and was actually backed up by various administrations (pointedly the US Reagan administration). It was only when he massively misread George Bush Senior in 1990, that he invaded Kuwait and the US had to intervene. Even then, Bush chose to contain Hussein rather than eliminate him - tacitly allowing to continue his reign of terror against his people. Clinton and George W. seemed in no hurry to stop that hell. George W. manufactured the invasion of Iraq for reasons of political expediency as realized by much of the civilized world - who failed to play along.

So its not a question of whether you need to threaten others to attract the wrath of the US, but whom you threaten and when. Even then, Hussein clearly was not a credible threat to anyone outside the middle east, and failed to even dent Iran. Iraq would have been no match for Israel.

Mugabe and Hussein have both used their powers to order the murders of their opposition. Hussein was simply more effective as he had more money to conduct his affairs. But Mugabe's cronies are cheap. Instead of killing thousands with bullets, they've killed them by taking away their livelihoods, by destroying the country's ability to provide itself with food, and by denying access to medicine.

Indeed, the only differences I see between the two despots is that Hussein used gas against his people (rather than machetes) and Mugabe is 71 years old, rather than Hussein's 66. Africa is a human tragedy on a horrific scale. Ignoring dictators such as Mugabe feeds their egos, encourages their madness and sends a message to their people that we couldn't give a damn. It's a festering hell-hole of rampant AIDS, rape, murder, abuse and denial.

Oh, and Zimbabwe has no black gold. I guess that says it oil.


----------



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

BTW, I am not proposing invasion of Zimbabwe! I think there's much that could be done to help the people and undermine Mugabe without troops which would lead to further suffering. Military intervention is never clean, and it's effects are rarely longlasting.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Africa is an unholy mess, no matter how you look at it. Even the very few countries that used to be functional are now heading for self-destruction.

I wish it were not so.   

The fact is that Zimbabwe is not a real threat to anyone and Mugabe is only good at screwing up his own people's lives. Saddam exported his disasters to other lands and was in a unique position to assist or harbour terrorists. Terrorists who could attack us.

He had to be removed.

Mugabe should be removed as well. For the good of everyone. Perhaps he is on some list somewhere...but it would have to be a rather long list. There are several names ahead of his, no doubt.

Saddam was at the very top of that long list.


----------

