Re: Mid Term Elections
You don't think Mr. bin Laden had anything to do with it? I do.onthebottom said:
Canada seeking to replace Germany in the the Deep Freeze
- Thread starter E_B_Samaritano
- Start date
First of all, I think given the environment people should be more guarded with their words. It strikes me as a bit classless. Overheard or not, it was a poor choice of words given the environment.
Second, if one wanted to make a case for Bush being a fool, it wouldn't be much of a challenge to do so without resorting to name calling. If this was the appraoch taken, I would surely applaud our government for taking a stand.
Third, it is not genius that has allowed Mr. Bush such high popularity. Nothing he has done has struck me as being at all brilliant or progressive,but rather reactionary and regressive. He's playing a game that leaders have played for centuries. Prey on fear and insecurity and make sure they think you will be the one to wash it all away. This is hardly genius.
Second, if one wanted to make a case for Bush being a fool, it wouldn't be much of a challenge to do so without resorting to name calling. If this was the appraoch taken, I would surely applaud our government for taking a stand.
Third, it is not genius that has allowed Mr. Bush such high popularity. Nothing he has done has struck me as being at all brilliant or progressive,but rather reactionary and regressive. He's playing a game that leaders have played for centuries. Prey on fear and insecurity and make sure they think you will be the one to wash it all away. This is hardly genius.
train said:Nothing that Jay Leno doesn't say on a regular basis . File under the category of "it's ok for us to criticize ourselves but not for anyone else to ". Why is it news when some minor non-elected diplomat ( who i believe i heard was a she ) says something stupid .
EBS why are you so damn sensitive ?
I actually happen to agree with her. No sensitivity on my part should be implied. I posted this to help those of you who seem to have a problem with understanding why Canada is having problems with good relations with the US government.
EBS
The US government has all but dismissed the statement as insignificant in the media. However, Canada should come to understand that there will be no barbeques at the ranch for Cretian.(sp)Dr69 said:It wasn't an official statement. It was a conversation that was overheard by reporters. A lot of people call Bush a moron in private.
Wasn't it Bush and/or Cheney who made some stupid off the cuff comment when they thought the microphones were off? And his brother Jeb BUsh also made some stupid comments which he thought were private.
All I can say is, morons in glass houses should not throw stones.
EBS
Last edited:
overheard this
This one was also picked up by a bystander:
George B.: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condoleeza R.: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George B.: Great. Lay it on me.
Condoleeza R.: Hu is the new leader of China.
George B.: That's what I want to know.
Condoleeza R.: That's what I'm telling you.
George B.: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condoleeza R.: Yes.
George B.: I mean the fellow's name.
Condoleeza R.: Hu.
George B.: The guy in China.
Condoleeza R.: Hu.
George B.: The new leader of China.
Condoleeza R.: Hu.
George B.: The Chinaman!
Condoleeza R.: Hu is leading China.
George B.: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condoleeza R.: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George B.: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condoleeza R.: That's the man's name.
George B.: That's who's name?
Condoleeza R.: Yes.
George B.: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condoleeza R.: That's correct.
George B.: Then who is in China?
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir is in China?
Condoleeza R.: No, sir.
George B.: Then who is?
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir?
Condoleeza R.: No, sir.
George B.: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condoleeza R.: Kofi?
George B.: No, thanks.
Condoleeza R.: You want Kofi?
George B.: No.
Condoleeza R.: You don't want Kofi.
George B.: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condoleeza R.: Kofi?
George B.: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condoleeza R.: And call who?
George B.: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condoleeza R.: Hu is the guy in China.
George B.: Will you stay out of China?!
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condoleeza R.: Kofi.
George B.: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
(Condi picks up the phone.)
Condoleeza R.: Rice, here.
George B.: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East.
This one was also picked up by a bystander:
George B.: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condoleeza R.: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George B.: Great. Lay it on me.
Condoleeza R.: Hu is the new leader of China.
George B.: That's what I want to know.
Condoleeza R.: That's what I'm telling you.
George B.: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condoleeza R.: Yes.
George B.: I mean the fellow's name.
Condoleeza R.: Hu.
George B.: The guy in China.
Condoleeza R.: Hu.
George B.: The new leader of China.
Condoleeza R.: Hu.
George B.: The Chinaman!
Condoleeza R.: Hu is leading China.
George B.: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condoleeza R.: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George B.: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condoleeza R.: That's the man's name.
George B.: That's who's name?
Condoleeza R.: Yes.
George B.: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condoleeza R.: That's correct.
George B.: Then who is in China?
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir is in China?
Condoleeza R.: No, sir.
George B.: Then who is?
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Yassir?
Condoleeza R.: No, sir.
George B.: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condoleeza R.: Kofi?
George B.: No, thanks.
Condoleeza R.: You want Kofi?
George B.: No.
Condoleeza R.: You don't want Kofi.
George B.: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condoleeza R.: Kofi?
George B.: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condoleeza R.: And call who?
George B.: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condoleeza R.: Hu is the guy in China.
George B.: Will you stay out of China?!
Condoleeza R.: Yes, sir.
George B.: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condoleeza R.: Kofi.
George B.: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
(Condi picks up the phone.)
Condoleeza R.: Rice, here.
George B.: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East.
I agree...so stop your whining everytime we don't call you for dinner when we have the big boys over for serious discussions.Dr69 said:Who cares? Why are you so eager to please the US?
The guy IS a MORON. He is a warmonger. Just because the American people are stupid enough to buy his crap, it doesn't mean the Canadians should too.
Why can't you people have a backbone and stand up to the US?
And as reported, the Bush Whitehouse doesn't exactly have a very high opinion of Chertien.
It just so happens that this remark about Bush slipped out in public.
Big F*cking deal.
EBS
Goober Mcfly said:Slander is only slander if it can be proven to be wrong, IMO.
Prove it to be wrong.
As I said before, I happen to agree with the statement. IF this statement is made by me or you it has no repercussions. It was made by a senior member of your PMs staff. For you, as a citizen of Canada, it means a further chill on US/Canadian relations. Canada aspires to run with the big boys in NATO and G8. Like it or not, this doesn't help those aspirations.
EBS
If I were you, I'd prefer to hail him a genius. That leaves room to assign positive IQs to other world leaders. Yes, he has capitalized brilliantly off of 9/11. You might even go so far as to say that Bin Laden made the man. But, like it or not, he embarrassed the UN into action and may very well be responsible for it's disintegration. The UN is irrelevant, largely by their own choice. They depend on a moron to SCARE them into action...Dr. Gonzo said:
Third, it is not genius that has allowed Mr. Bush such high popularity. Nothing he has done has struck me as being at all brilliant or progressive,but rather reactionary and regressive. He's playing a game that leaders have played for centuries. Prey on fear and insecurity and make sure they think you will be the one to wash it all away. This is hardly genius.
EBS
See, now you have to go and make me disagree with you again.
Bush has not capitalized brilliantly on 9/11. He's taken what I see as the lowest road that appeals to the lowest common deonminator instead of seeing as an opportunity for real progressive reform and international dialogue. He's created more enemies than friends in the international community and has chosen to trample the civil rights of Americans and indeed people everywhere. He is now itching to engage in a war that is so opposed by people, protests against it sprung up well in advance of the war even starting. This is an unprecedented display of opposition and very telling of the international divide he has caused.
Perhaps you missed my postings asking whether or not Iraq would be considered a "rogue state" if they posessed veto power at the UN, or an ally with that power?
The UN isn't irrelevent because it doesn't want to leap into war, the UN goal is to prevent war. Don't forget, Iraq is a member of the UN and the UN is doing exactly as it's mandate suggests. The UN alone should be the sole arbiter of who is to be considered a threat to global stability and I think due diligence is being performed in this regard. May I also remind you that it was the US who undermined weapons inspections and interfered with them constantly?
If the UN is irrelevent, it is so because it allows the US to manipulate it to it's own ends when necessary and to outright ignore it when it further serves them. Without the ability to threaten, intimidate and veto key resolutions the US would be the real international pariah.
There is more blood on our hands than Saddam could ever hope for in his sadistic fantasies. Yet I don't see any move here to change that and that is the real tragedy of all of this, that is the missed opportunity in the sad crisis we have been faced with.
BTW: The US, in it's zeal to fight terror and shut down terrorist training camps should perhaps start in it's own backyard and finally close the book on the shameful story of the School of the Americas. Then I might take such commitment to ending terror seriously.
Bush has not capitalized brilliantly on 9/11. He's taken what I see as the lowest road that appeals to the lowest common deonminator instead of seeing as an opportunity for real progressive reform and international dialogue. He's created more enemies than friends in the international community and has chosen to trample the civil rights of Americans and indeed people everywhere. He is now itching to engage in a war that is so opposed by people, protests against it sprung up well in advance of the war even starting. This is an unprecedented display of opposition and very telling of the international divide he has caused.
Perhaps you missed my postings asking whether or not Iraq would be considered a "rogue state" if they posessed veto power at the UN, or an ally with that power?
The UN isn't irrelevent because it doesn't want to leap into war, the UN goal is to prevent war. Don't forget, Iraq is a member of the UN and the UN is doing exactly as it's mandate suggests. The UN alone should be the sole arbiter of who is to be considered a threat to global stability and I think due diligence is being performed in this regard. May I also remind you that it was the US who undermined weapons inspections and interfered with them constantly?
If the UN is irrelevent, it is so because it allows the US to manipulate it to it's own ends when necessary and to outright ignore it when it further serves them. Without the ability to threaten, intimidate and veto key resolutions the US would be the real international pariah.
There is more blood on our hands than Saddam could ever hope for in his sadistic fantasies. Yet I don't see any move here to change that and that is the real tragedy of all of this, that is the missed opportunity in the sad crisis we have been faced with.
BTW: The US, in it's zeal to fight terror and shut down terrorist training camps should perhaps start in it's own backyard and finally close the book on the shameful story of the School of the Americas. Then I might take such commitment to ending terror seriously.
Well said, and not a bad way of summing up Canada's general reaction to U.S. activities...E_B_Samaritano said:
I agree...so stop your whining everytime we don't call you for dinner when we have the big boys over for serious discussions.
EBS
Joebob
Yes..I believe we do agree about .000000...1% of the time. I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to give your life history. It helps me understand in CONTEXT your political orientation. I hope you get well soon. If I had just landed on earth for the first time and was confronted with your litany, I'd have to agree that the US is one of the most blood thirsty, greedy and amoral nations on earth. When I consider your littany in total context, I would be hard pressed to understand how such a powerful nation has acted with remarkable restraint and made such a remarkable contribution to humankind. Clearly if the US sole intent was to inflict death and distress in any conquest of the earth, it could do so with devastating efficiency. Objective observers of our actions understand this fact. They also hold ALL parties in an action responsible for the outcome. The fact that the US is widely criticized is attributable to its willingness to act. Nothing is contributed by those who sit on the sidelines and mock. Action separates the leaders from the also rans. The peanut gallery offers nothing but feigned concern and copious criticism. They are scared of their own shadows, paralyzed by the fear. They are masters of absolving themselves from guilt as afterall, they had nothing to do with ACTION. They criticize from a position of self loathing, insecurity and envy. They emphasize what's wrong yet feel entititled to the spoils. This same cancer has eaten away at many nations whose leaders coveniently instill in their populations the merits of blame everybody but ourselves. As the US in on the top of the heap, what better way to absolve the failures of your society. Look at US history and tell me if there isn't the pathos of pain for gain within our own country to achieve our system of government, working conditions and living standards. The working conditions in the US are a result of centuries of our people making sacrifice and fighting for their rights. Over 500,000 Americans died in civil war, a figure that dwarfs any war in which our country incurred casualties. What pipedream is it that makes you believe that people in other nations deserve such comfort in the form of a handout. Russia, emerging from a communist socialist form of government is a classic textbook case. Progress will be slow as their people must learn a sense of being responsible for oneself, i.e. personal initiative.Dr. Gonzo said:EBS: I'm shocked to find us in agreement for once....
Alphabit: That was one of the goddmaned funniest things I have seen on here in a long time...I can just picture it....lol...funny as hell....
I seldom agree with extremists. I react with equal disdain to extremist views from either side of the spectrum. To me, there is little intellectual value in assessing anything from an extreme position. Rhetorical dogma is stifling to thought and contributes nothing towards achieving a comprehensive understanding, let alone a practical solution.
EBS
Last edited:
You just don't get it, do you?
Remarkable restraint?
Contribution to humankind?
I agree that some wonderful things have happened in the US. The civil rights movement stands as a powerful symbol as well as movements for workers rights, personal liberties, free of speech and expression. These are all testaments to the power of people to make change in positive ways.
You are not without some serious problems, however. And you are not without blame for not doing more to fix those problems.
If you want me to explain to you once again why the US isn't after "global domination" in the sense you prescribe I'll be happy to do so, but I feel I'd be wasting my time going over and over the same points you refuse and/or are unable to refute.
Russia is a very poor example of capitalism and democracy at work. I suggest you visit sometime and see first hand exactly the kind of place it is. Rife with corruption and horrific poverty. Yet people like you hail it as an economic miracle, much like Latin America.
You're damn right I criticise from a position of self-loathing. It makes me sick to be a part of a society that allows and in fact encourages such behaviour. It makes me sick to be a part of a society so apathetic and shallow. It makes me sick to know we could achieve so much better if only we got off of our complacent asses and did something about it.
Envy? Hardly. But how typically vain and self-centered of you to suggest that.
And let's talk of action. Action, in your mind, seems to equate to aggression and war. Action in the mind of people of conscience and compassion equates something far greater: taking responsibilty. Attempting to resolve differences without sabre-rattling and cruise missiles. Without economic and political coercion. Action is recognising when you are wrong and takng steps to correct it. Action is introspection and questioning. Action is rising above violence whenever possible. Even inaction is an action in and of itself and can be just as helpful or harmful.
I hardly see my position as being repressive to thought and dialogue. Questions, tough questions need to be asked. Difficult facts need to be revealed and debated. Why is everyone who is critical of the current world order considered "dogmatic" and treacherous? To me the real treachery is refusing to face the truth, and this does not only apply to the US, my statements apply to everyone and refusing to keep questioning even in the face of an unpopular line of inquiry.
I blame myself and my country just as much as I blame yours. I blame everyone who doesn't take up the challenge and seek a better way. It so happens that the US is in my view in a unique position to take a real stand and make real positive marks upon the world, being the only superpower. The fact that it instead chooses to move in the opposite direction is an epic tragedy and in my humble opinion a squandered opportunity to truly display your greatness.
Remarkable restraint?
Contribution to humankind?
I agree that some wonderful things have happened in the US. The civil rights movement stands as a powerful symbol as well as movements for workers rights, personal liberties, free of speech and expression. These are all testaments to the power of people to make change in positive ways.
You are not without some serious problems, however. And you are not without blame for not doing more to fix those problems.
If you want me to explain to you once again why the US isn't after "global domination" in the sense you prescribe I'll be happy to do so, but I feel I'd be wasting my time going over and over the same points you refuse and/or are unable to refute.
Russia is a very poor example of capitalism and democracy at work. I suggest you visit sometime and see first hand exactly the kind of place it is. Rife with corruption and horrific poverty. Yet people like you hail it as an economic miracle, much like Latin America.
You're damn right I criticise from a position of self-loathing. It makes me sick to be a part of a society that allows and in fact encourages such behaviour. It makes me sick to be a part of a society so apathetic and shallow. It makes me sick to know we could achieve so much better if only we got off of our complacent asses and did something about it.
Envy? Hardly. But how typically vain and self-centered of you to suggest that.
And let's talk of action. Action, in your mind, seems to equate to aggression and war. Action in the mind of people of conscience and compassion equates something far greater: taking responsibilty. Attempting to resolve differences without sabre-rattling and cruise missiles. Without economic and political coercion. Action is recognising when you are wrong and takng steps to correct it. Action is introspection and questioning. Action is rising above violence whenever possible. Even inaction is an action in and of itself and can be just as helpful or harmful.
I hardly see my position as being repressive to thought and dialogue. Questions, tough questions need to be asked. Difficult facts need to be revealed and debated. Why is everyone who is critical of the current world order considered "dogmatic" and treacherous? To me the real treachery is refusing to face the truth, and this does not only apply to the US, my statements apply to everyone and refusing to keep questioning even in the face of an unpopular line of inquiry.
I blame myself and my country just as much as I blame yours. I blame everyone who doesn't take up the challenge and seek a better way. It so happens that the US is in my view in a unique position to take a real stand and make real positive marks upon the world, being the only superpower. The fact that it instead chooses to move in the opposite direction is an epic tragedy and in my humble opinion a squandered opportunity to truly display your greatness.
Clearly none of us down south care much about what you think about the President or his actions. His job is to act in our best interest. Evidence shows overwhelmingly that Americans believe he has done just that. Prior to 9/11, his popularity rating was on life support. Since then explain how he prevailed in both the UN and in influence on the midterm elections? For the record, I'd never vote for the man. But I don't let partisan ideology blind me to facts.Dr. Gonzo said:See, now you have to go and make me disagree with you again.
Bush has not capitalized brilliantly on 9/11. He's taken what I see as the lowest road that appeals to the lowest common deonminator instead of seeing as an opportunity for real progressive reform and international dialogue.
I almost believed that until I understood all the individual agendas involved. These are gutless greedy cowards. You can just call us greedy. Just what is it that you purport to know about the civil rights of Americans? You're Canadian. Nothing he's done has impacted my civil rights. And for the record you sound about as foolish when you try to explain the BLACK experience in America in some of your earlier musings. You should be very careful making observations about our society. Your naivety shines through every time you take these liberties.He's created more enemies than friends in the international community and has chosen to trample the civil rights of Americans and indeed people everywhere.
continued to part 2...
part 2 :response to Dr. Gonzo post
There will always be those who oppose a war. There will always be those who thrive on demonizing any and everything that the US does. They sweep aside the atrocities committed by Saddam and condemn those who seek to remedy the situation. They conveniently forget that as a defeated invader of a neighbor country, that the man consented to stipulations under a UN agreeement. History reminds us that there will be no peace without war. The Iraqis will never regain hope for a decent life as long as this iresponsible man is at the helm of their country. In this instance, Saddam Hussain has shown he is willing to needlessy allow his population to suffer. He understands nothing but a credible threat of force. WHO THE FUCK else is credible when it it comes to execution of that threat...certainly not the UN. All the nonsense about negotiations and resolutions is just that...nonsense. Might I remind you that precedent was set when NATO went to Kosovo. Where was the UN authorization for use of force? The french were all too happy for us to clean up their backyard. They unlike you, understand geopolitics. Why don't you get with the rest of the kiddies while we adults take care of business for you.
I think your viewpoint is a typical liberal idealistic pipedream, bordering on naive. The UN has taken little responsibility for its actions in the Gulf. To the contrary, the US and Great Britain have stepped up where the UN has withdrawn. However, the UN is good at churning the money administered as part of the Food for Oil program.
EBS
There is carrot and there is stick. You gorge on carrots while we brandish the stick as required. All you'll accomplish is stuffing your face.He is now itching to engage in a war that is so opposed by people, protests against it sprung up well in advance of the war even starting. This is an unprecedented display of opposition and very telling of the international divide he has caused.
There will always be those who oppose a war. There will always be those who thrive on demonizing any and everything that the US does. They sweep aside the atrocities committed by Saddam and condemn those who seek to remedy the situation. They conveniently forget that as a defeated invader of a neighbor country, that the man consented to stipulations under a UN agreeement. History reminds us that there will be no peace without war. The Iraqis will never regain hope for a decent life as long as this iresponsible man is at the helm of their country. In this instance, Saddam Hussain has shown he is willing to needlessy allow his population to suffer. He understands nothing but a credible threat of force. WHO THE FUCK else is credible when it it comes to execution of that threat...certainly not the UN. All the nonsense about negotiations and resolutions is just that...nonsense. Might I remind you that precedent was set when NATO went to Kosovo. Where was the UN authorization for use of force? The french were all too happy for us to clean up their backyard. They unlike you, understand geopolitics. Why don't you get with the rest of the kiddies while we adults take care of business for you.
No, i dismissed them as moot. Iraq is a third world nation headed by a despot. They have no right to veto power. The UN would have long since dissolved if third world nations had veto power. The first requirement is that you have the ability to excercise stewardhip. Those who sit on the security council, have won that right based on their importance in shaping the world.Perhaps you missed my postings asking whether or not Iraq would be considered a "rogue state" if they posessed veto power at the UN, or an ally with that power?
Yes, and a responsible member of the UN who has been defeated as the agressor of a war, should be predisposed to abide by it's resolution. Why not put blame where blame belongs? 11 years and no compliance. At the least it begs the question of UN effectiveness. Arguably, the UN can be seen to be useless.The UN isn't irrelevent because it doesn't want to leap into war, the UN goal is to prevent war. Don't forget, Iraq is a member of the UN and the UN is doing exactly as it's mandate suggests.
Yes, you are right about the US culpability in the inspection process. Yet, as you usually do, you neglect the fact that there was little cooperation from Iraq throughout the process. We should have terminated the process and finished his ass off long before the CIA got involved. We stumbled upon their nuclear capability as a result of extra intelligence provide by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. They openly sought to decieve us from the beginning. The injection of the CIA made a huge difference towards catching them red handed while they hid and played musical chairs with chemical and WMDs.The UN alone should be the sole arbiter of who is to be considered a threat to global stability and I think due diligence is being performed in this regard. May I also remind you that it was the US who undermined weapons inspections and interfered with them constantly?
I think your viewpoint is a typical liberal idealistic pipedream, bordering on naive. The UN has taken little responsibility for its actions in the Gulf. To the contrary, the US and Great Britain have stepped up where the UN has withdrawn. However, the UN is good at churning the money administered as part of the Food for Oil program.
Do we not see this same behavior from other countries, or does your fixation with US faults blind you to this fact?If the UN is irrelevent, it is so because it allows the US to manipulate it to it's own ends when necessary and to outright ignore it when it further serves them. Without the ability to threaten, intimidate and veto key resolutions the US would be the real international pariah.
I'll let that idiotic statement stand solely as your opinion. You lose all credibility in your argument when you try to equate the actions of a despot against his people with that of a civilized country.There is more blood on our hands than Saddam could ever hope for in his sadistic fantasies.
EBS
Last edited:
part 3-response to dr. Gonzo
Yet I don't see any move here to change that and that is the real tragedy of all of this, that is the missed opportunity in the sad crisis we have been faced with.
To change what? Is this not the pervue of the UN? Where is their initiative in this matter. Kofi Anan is too busy sipping champagne and eating escargo to be bothered with such responsibilities. The UN is little more than an excuse for third world countries to gain access to the US. We host it and without US participation, it is irrelevant. I wouldn't cry a single tear if it dissolved.
EBS
Re: part 2 :response to Dr. Gonzo post
So, am I to gather by your comment that it is OK for the US to act despicably against the people of other countries, and this is what makes it civilized, versus a despot who gases his own people? Is that where the line is drawn? There are countries in C America still suffering from after effects of US intervention. Was the US behaving in a civilized way then?E_B_Samaritano said:
I'll let that idiotic statement stand solely as your opinion. You lose all credibility in your argument when you try to equate the actions of a despot against his people with that of a civilized country.
EBS
Moreover hasn't US foreign policy for the longest time relied on despots and dictators in order to advance it's own agenda?
What is the problem with Saddam being a despot? Is it just that he is not YOUR despot? Wasn't he your despot at one time? and then things went sour? From what I read, the US or US companies were supplying Iraq with chemical weapons sometime back in 1991/92, knowing full well that he was gassing Kurds.
And then there is Musharraf, the dictator in Pakistan and an American ally in the war against terror. Or is he really an "ally" ?
What is the problem with Saddam being a despot? Is it just that he is not YOUR despot? Wasn't he your despot at one time? and then things went sour? From what I read, the US or US companies were supplying Iraq with chemical weapons sometime back in 1991/92, knowing full well that he was gassing Kurds.
And then there is Musharraf, the dictator in Pakistan and an American ally in the war against terror. Or is he really an "ally" ?
You state the obvious. None of us are without faults. What you have to realize is that you don't get constructive dialogue by blasting the alledged offending party with their faults. Afterall, these days the US doesn't need talk to anyone. We do so as a responsible member of the world's nations. The US has certainly committed mistakes in their international dealings. And 20/20 hindsight is always convenient. We can look forward to doing things better at a time when world order is such that it will allow. Right now, we have radical islamists who want to kill us. That is the first order of business. I believe my nation will address it's "faults" in the way and at a time that we desire. For all it's faults, the US contributes more than it's fair share to the world. Try having a world bank without the US. Brazil and Argentina come to the US looking for direct aid to bail them out of a financial crisis. We underwrote the Mexican debt. We have canceled debt for many nations in history and given outright grants to Europe. Even prior to 9/11 we were the worlds largest contributor of foreign aid to Afghanistan. Where was the rest of the sanctimonious world? The Marshall Plan is the basis for the EU. Japan and South Korea are modern productive members of the world largely due to US stewardship. We are the largest supplier of humanitarian assistance to North Korea. Almost all countries enjoy a trade surplus with US, yet they wine about not getting more access to our markets. I'd be pleased to do more business with Mexico and less with Canada. That's how you can do your part.Dr. Gonzo said:You just don't get it, do you?
You are not without some serious problems, however. And you are not without blame for not doing more to fix those problems.
You do lose me here. I haven't referenced global domination anywhere in my postings.If you want me to explain to you once again why the US isn't after "global domination" in the sense you prescribe I'll be happy to do so, but I feel I'd be wasting my time going over and over the same points you refuse and/or are unable to refute.
You obviously misinterpret my reference to Russia. I cited Russia specifically as a country in painful transition. I'm acutely aware of the conditions in Russia.Russia is a very poor example of capitalism and democracy at work. I suggest you visit sometime and see first hand exactly the kind of place it is. Rife with corruption and horrific poverty. Yet people like you hail it as an economic miracle, much like Latin America.
You know, from all your ramblings about poverty and the ills visited by the US on the rest of the world, not once have I heard of anything you've personally done to rectify the situation, other than take "White missionary' vacations, go pet the poor natives and bring your privilidged ass back to comparatively lavish society. I'm surprised you aren't down there right now in the trenches.You're damn right I criticise from a position of self-loathing.
And I'm not surprised that a priviledged "neo liberal" wanna be poor boy to impathise with the worlds oppressed would hold that position. I didn't have my parent's money to spend, so I couldn't buy priviledge. Nice to be able to take the silver spoon out of your mouth and then moralize about the ills of being wealthy.Envy? Hardly. But how typically vain and self-centered of you to suggest that.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. What I do believe is that effectiveness in resolving conflict is often leveraged by the credible threat of force. Recall we asked Saddam to leave Kuwait before we threw him out. Do you believe that if the US and Great Britain weren't involved in that UN force, that any request made of Saddam would have been realized? Don't answer that it was a quick question...LOL..And let's talk of action. Action, in your mind, seems to equate to aggression and war.
I'll skip the rest of your lecture. I'm just thankful there's no option for violin music..I'm sure you'd turn it on for effect.
I see your opinion as a half empty glass...forget the positives emphasize the negatives, never blame anybody except the ones who succeed. The poor and defeated are poor because we are rich..right? Strait from pure socialismI hardly see my position as being repressive to thought and dialogue.
Because their rants are full of hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric and low on realistic pragmatic solutions. World order is what it is. Somebody has to be on top. This democracy will not yield to your socialist planet ideology.Why is everyone who is critical of the current world order considered "dogmatic" and treacherous?
