Canada seeking to replace Germany in the the Deep Freeze

[Dr. Gonzo]

Once again, you choose to shoot off your mouth with no facts to back up your statements.

I've demonstrated time and time again the US history of aggression and terror. I've done this citing facts, facts that you STILL ignore and provide no credible argument against.

How did Saddam get the weapons he so famously used on his own people? Where did the weapons to invade Kuwait come from? I don't "sweep aside" atroctites committed by Saddam, but neither will I sweep aside atrocities committed by a country who claims moral superiority.

How many dead in Latin America?

How many dead in Indonesia?

How many dead in Indochina?

How many dead in Sudan? Libya? Panama?

How many dead in Iraq?

And how many are still to die?

As for your belief that your President is acting in your best interest, that is laughable.

I think we would both agree that it would be in your best interest not to have to fear further attacks and in fact do everything possible to decrease the risk of attack. Why then is nothing made of a report, drafted by your very own CIA no less, that states war on Iraq will greatly increase the risk of terrorist reprisals.

And don't try to tell me it's risk management and cost/benefit. Saddam Hussein is NOT a credible threat to the people of the US. Not unless he is suicidal. The interest is revenge and control of oil, period. Otherwise you'd be knocking on North Koreas door just as hard. This proliferation business is merely requisite pretext so as to obtain the consent of the masses.

Your comments about civil rights are also very telling of your attitude. Who cares so long as it doesn't affect me, right? Tell me then what you think of this TIPS program. Is it acceptable to you to have hundreds of thousands of "citizen informants" creeping through your neighborhood? Sounds like something the Stasi would have salivated over, not a supposed "civilized" nation. You can also tell me how you feel about hundreds detained post 9/11 without charges or trials, some of whom are still detained to this day. But I suppose this won't bother you until YOU are behind bars and denied access to basic human rights.

As for my categorisation of the "black experience" in America, I stand behind it. Perhaps you should come down from your gated community in the suburbs and see how the rest of us live. And while we're on the subject again, while I think the civil rights movement was a powerful thing for the black community and the country as a whole, why the fuck did it have to happen in the first place? Shouldn't it have been obvious to a "civilized" country that the only difference between black and white or any skin tone is pigment and is no reflection of the character of a human being?

And now diplomacy and negotiation is nonsense? First of all, who the fuck are you to tell anyone else to disarm? YOU have the largest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world and you steadfastly slap your dick in the face of the international community by refusing to dispose of these weapons like you ask everyone else to, or at least everyone who disagrees with you. YOU voted against a ban on chemical and biological weapons! But what is good for the goose is never good for the gander, I suppose. You just want to horde all the toys so you and you alone may threaten the world with them.

And as far as other countries manipulating and ignoring the UN, sure it may be a popular game but YOU are the masters of it. And perhaps if you displayed a good example to the world others may follow. Instead you pick and choose which rules should apply to you and then bomb other countries for daring to do the same.

And it seems you choose to "dismiss" a lot of what I say as moot with neither comment nor rebuttal. A curiously intellectually dishonest method of debate. The fact of the matter is that you CAN'T credibly argue against the facts I have laid out. My opinions are one thing and certainly I'll be the first to admit I may be wrong, but the facts I have stated I stand behind fully. Why didn't you repsond after I laid out the facts about the School of the Americas, especially after your attempted scathing defense? Why didn't you respond when I defied you to refute me on Latin America and Indonesia and America's legacy of terror in these regions, espeically after you called me an idiot? And now you continue with personal insults and party line rhetoric but very scant facts and rebuttals of any merit. If I fabricate the facts, I ask you again why you haven't leapt to the defense of "truth"? Dismissal without comment smacks more of a lack of good argument than it does a sense of superiority.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I have no love for Saddam Hussein. I think he is thug and a disgrace to the international community. He is squarely to blame for many of his nations woes. But he doesn't suffer for it. His people do. And I have love for the people of Iraq just as I have love for people anywhere. It is the same with America. I have no problem with the American people. We are so much more alike than different and we are all brothers and sisters here. But I despise the American government, more so than I despise Saddam, who is at least not delusional about what he is. Nothing but a tin pot dictator, thug and mass murderer. The government of the US on the other hand chooses to delude itself and it's people into a false sense of moral superiority, turning a blind eye to the grave injustices it commits as a daily manner of business.

Call me naive, but at least I have the balls to question and seek better answers. This is real patriotism. I love my country, EBS, I love the world we live in. I think I love it more than you...

BTW: If playing with the big boys means acting as you do, I'll stay here in the sand box and leave you to pick the airplane wreckage out of your ass...

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Moreover hasn't US foreign policy for the longest time relied on despots and dictators in order to advance it's own agenda?

You're quite right. It has literally been the "enemy of my enemy" is my friend. If you know about the geopolitics of the Gulf, then you can understand the pragmatic thinking behind the decisions to support one versus the other. It's easy not to agree with the logic. In the context of the Cold war, soviet influence in the region, security of strategic oil, and the area being overrun with fundemenatal Islam it was literally the only thing one could do. Democracy is not going to work in that region. I actually think if Hussain hadn't abused his people, that his secular dictatorship is exactly what works. Kurds, Shiias, and Sunnis will be constantly at war in any other scenario. People who have an inability to understand such actions when taken in context, simply don't understand why we won the Cold War. Of course it really wasn't your problem. We had the only credible detterent to the spread of Communism.

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.

I have no problem with him being a despot. I do have a problem with him owning WMDs, particularly in light of his propensity to use them ruthlessly in violation of the Geneva convention. The inaction by the US at that time is unexcusable. But let's be clear here as to who is culpable..Saddam and only Saddam. The UN could do nothing more than try to pass a resolution of condemnation. Of course the french and germans, let alone the Russians weren't happy with the US being there...too many financial interest on their part. Why do you figure Russia is owed 9 billion dollars...it's debts for weapons.

I have seen it irresponsibly reported that the CIA was responsible for Saddam Hussains rise to power. There is no credible evidence to support this fact. I can attest to the Shah of Iran. I had the opportunity to meet the man when I lived in Tehran in the early 60's.

I'm impressed with your grasp of the facts. You forgot to mention, however that the French and Germans along with the Soviets supplied the bulk of chemicals, nuclear and conventional weaponry. Yet they are never mentioned in these discussions. I don't have to ask why? http://www.wisconsinproject.org/

And then there is Musharraf, the dictator in Pakistan and an American ally in the war against terror. Or is he really an "ally" ?

Once again, sometimes you just have to play the hand you have. Musharaff had no choice but to cooperate with us. We'd use his airspace whether he liked it or not. And of course his country was in near financial collaspse and he wanted access to US markets, having been cut off when they went nuclear in the 90's. I've seen numerous signs of cooperation from the Pakistanis, despite their obvious tilt to Islamic fundementalism and the Taliban. Do you have any better suggestions to achieve the objective?

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

.

Call me naive, but at least I have the balls to question and seek better answers. This is real patriotism. I love my country, EBS, I love the world we live in. I think I love it more than you...

BTW: If playing with the big boys means acting as you do, I'll stay here in the sand box and leave you to pick the airplane wreckage out of your ass...

Spoken like a true Cannuck. MIght I ask who is going to pick the airplane wreckage out of your ass? You indeed are naive if you don't think that the Islamic fundementalists wouldn't think twice about taking you out. The only thing keeping them off your ass is bigger fish to fry south of the border. But it is tougher to do a 9/11 down here these days. So they need some softer targets.
Might I remind you that the Japanese attacked the US despite the fact we had an official policy of neutrality, yet they did nothing to Canada, despite Canada being fully engaged in the war. That was no accident, but history shows it was a bad mistake. At least they got a modern civilized nation out of the deal. Imagine what they'd have gotten if they attacked Canada.

You are clearly mistaken if you think these people won't shit where they eat. Imagine what would have happenned had the Millenium bomber accidently detonated his explosives on the Canadian side of the border.

http:/seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/bomb22.shtml

Enjoy your reading.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Re: 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?

The use of gas on the battlefield is outlawed by the Geneva convention. That's the governing law in that case. If you want to draw moral equivalence between a Saddam Hussain and actions that the US took to aid in overthrow of unfriendly governments, then I'll have to leave you to your opinion as well.


There is little evidence to support the claims that any of these countries would have been better off if not for US intervention. I believe the criticism is leveled strictly because the US was involved. Since we have assets, these folks want a piece of the action. There are plenty of shouts of brutality and callousness leveled against the US for our operations in Afghanistan. A lot of them are flat out lies. However, many have tried to extort reparations for deaths that didn't happen. They didn't do that to the Soviets, now did they. In fact nobody ever talks about the culpability of the Soviets. It's always the US this, the US that. I hear no such criticism leveled at the Soviets, who did plenty of damage in South and Central America. I see poor leftovers from British and French colonialism all over the planet. I see a messed up Orient and Middle East under the stewardship of Great Britain. The turmoil in the middle east started as a result of the invasion of the Europeans and the breakup of the Ottamon empire.

What I do know, is that we have a border with Mexico. Sitting up there in the frozen isolated tundra allows you the luxury of pontification. May I ask what you would do if revolution broke out in your backyard. May I ask what in fact Canada did do as a member of Nato to intervene in Bosnia? May I ask you to critically review the performance of your heralded peacekeeping force given that it is reported that the UN forces stood by and watched massacres of innocent people?
EBS

 

[Don]

No Big Deal

So she called Bush a "moron" to a reporter or whatever. People are entitled to their opinions and she didn't intend to have her comments public.

Remember the time when Bush was going to give a speech and he forgot his mic was on when he leaned over to Chaney and said something like "That guy is an a$$hole" when discussing a rival?

 

[xarir]

Re: Re: Re: part 2 :response to Dr. Gonzo post

I see poor leftovers from British and French colonialism all over the planet. I see a messed up Orient and Middle East under the stewardship of Great Britain. The turmoil in the middle east started as a result of the invasion of the Europeans and the breakup of the Ottamon empire.

May I ask what in fact Canada did do as a member of Nato to intervene in Bosnia? May I ask you to critically review the performance of your heralded peacekeeping force given that it is reported that the UN forces stood by and watched massacres of innocent people?
EBS

Some good points there EBS. 'Tis true that under British "leadership" many somewhat arbitrary decisions were made that still have ramifications today. The creation of Pakistan and Palestine are prime examples of this. The US hasn't done anything comparable to this and likely won't since there isn't any "US Colonialism".

Your point on Bosnian non-intervention is well taken. Initially I believe the view here was that the situation was not necessarily a NATO one, but a European one. That's a very self-centred, self-rightous perspective but objectively there's some validity to the point.

When nation-states choose to intervene in external situations (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Isreal / Palestine ...) the choice must be made very carefully with thought to a) why intervention is in the best interests of the nation-state, b) why intervention will be good for the party being intervened upon, and most importantly c) once intervention takes place, what measures will be put in place to ensure an orderly withdrawl of forces.

IMHO, I think Canadians see weaknesses in US foreign policy in that very little consideration seems to be given to the above points. For example, it seems clear that there use of military force in Iraq is imminent. How will this benefit the US? How will this benefit Iraq if Saddam is killed / ousted? How (when) will the US withdraw if a change in Iraqi government is effected?

Now, the use of military force in Afghanistan could possibly be justified in that the answer to a) (How does this benefit the US) seems pretty obvious. Getting rid of Osama & Al Qaeda is a Good Thing. How does this benefit Afghanistan? Getting rid of the Taliban government in favour of democracy was probably a good thing too. But I'll bet you US forces will be in Afghanistan for a very long time. (You guys are still in Iraq 11 years later.)

2 out of 3 ain't bad, but my point is that the decision to use US military force oft seems to be a quick one. With the Bush Administration in particular, one has to wonder if this is a Good Thing.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

True to form, EBS, you evade the bulk of my comments and choose instead to pick arguably the least signifigant thing I said and try and hold out in that bunker you call a mind.

I wrote a very long post in rebuttal to some of your latest comments and wasn't able to finish it before I had to log off, but I'll do my best to recreate it once I have the time. Rest assured I have plenty to say, but I'll be somewhat brief for now.

I'm well aware that danger is everywhere. I'm just not about to let fear dominate my better judgement and take actions that will only lead to antagonize the situation.

Japan got a more civilized nation and the dubious honor of being the first to have the horrors of nuclear war visited upon them. But what's a few hundred thousand civillian casualties on your conscience, especially when there are greater evils in the world, like Saddam Hussein? What a joke.

The moral equivalence is there, like it or not. The methodology might be different but the result is the same: thousands upon thousands of innocent lives destroyed for the pursuit of power, or in the case of Japan, to avoid further conflict and loss of American lives. But I suppose those American lives were worth more than a bunch of backward Japs, weren't they?

It's hard to say what might have happened should the bomber have decided to attack Canada. But I'll venture a guess and say we probably wouldn't have gone off on a string of armed misadventures hopped up on jingoism and amphetamines with murder hard-ons so big we'd bomb weddings, villages, our own allies and anyone who wasn't white and wore funny things on their heads.

Funny that you invoke the Geneva convention. You like the rules when they work in your favor, but ignore them when they don't. The Geneva convention also outlaws torture, assassination, and targeting civillians as well as blocking humanitarian aid. All activities you or your proxy forces have embraced over the years.

And to say there is no evidence Latin America would be better off without US intervention is extremely contentious. After intervention and "market discipline" were introduced to these countries poverty skyrocketed to levels that were unprecedented even in these poor nations and so did literacy and basic education. Health suffered even more dramatically than it did before as well. True, it can be said that the wealth of these countries increased but to be fully honest one must look at where the wealth ended up: in the hands of the elite. Meanwhile agricultural production shifted from serving domestic interests (feeding the people) to serving the import market and market derugulation of public utilities pushed the price of electricity and basic water and sanitary sewers out of reach for much of the continent. Barriers to capital flow fell and the money fled the country to feed the coffers of US and European corporations.

As far as Soviet damage to South America goes my recolection of Soviet intervention in SA was to sell arms to Nicaragua and Cuba and indeed many other SA nations, largely becuase the US threatened everyone else who tried to make such sales. Marxism made a big impact on SA, but we never really got a chance to see what a real Latin Marxist state looked like because every time the people tried to establish one the US unleashed it's proxy death squads on them, or in the case of Cuba worked as hard as possible to undermine their development. But let's not forget that Marxism wasn't the only idea floating around in SA to counter exploitive dictatorships. Collectivism has always been a strong tradition in the region and is enjoying major successes today despite continuing interference from the US and it's proxy forces.

As for Bosnia, well, we all failed in Bosnia at that will be one of the great shames of the UN. But let's also not forget the horrors of Rwanda. Our Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire witnessed the massacares and repeatedly pleaded with the UN and indeed the US forces to intervene and his pleas fell on dead ears. No one was interested, not until it was far too late. General Dallaire should have been a hero, and in my mind he is for at least trying in the face of indifference. I have respect for Colin Powell as well for reportedly lobbying for an end to the slaughter after seeing the infamous "highway of death" photos from the Gulf war.

More later...I've been putting off work all evening for this and I have a deadline monday.

 

[*d*]

contradictions

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.

EBS
I find it odd that you claim Bush has not impacted your civil rights and yet you started an earlier thread on civil right violations with US agencies monitoring Iraqis inside US borders -"And you thought the CDN/US border was a hassle". You point to a New York Times article on how some civil rights may be in jeopardy.

And with your interest in rights, I think you can respect the opinion of the world's leading human rights organization, Amnesty International. Especially with their contribution to the world black communities. The 1996 Amnesty International's annual report concludes, on discussion of US policies, that, "It is a paradox that a nation that did so much to articulate and codify human rights in its foundation documents has so consistantly resisted and undermined the effective functioning of an international framework to protect these principles and values" "...repression, torture and terror has occured disproportionately amoung countries in the American sphere of influence." "Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, a woman, or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or 'disppeared' at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the US shares the blame."
The US may indeed, be on a mission to make the world a safer place. But a safer place for capitalism.

d

 

[WoodPeckr]

Guys we digress from the fact....

That "Bush is a Moron". Watched SNL earlier tonight, it was a repeat, where the opening skit depicts Dubya, Uncle Dicky Cheney and Condo Rice going over the middle east countries and their leaders. Of course Dubya was clueless and befuddled with this area of the world, and Rice and Cheney were doing all they could to educate the moron pres.

This recent situation with the Canadian PM, has all the makings of a future SNL skit which I think will be hysterically funny. It may even be done next week.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

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.

Don't you see the problem here? You demand change from others instantly. When others ask you to change, you tell them to fuck off or say "we'll change when we bloody well fell like it" and hide behind realpolitik.

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.

No you don't. You contribute the least of all industrialized nations and lower than standards recognized by leading relief organizations.

Argentina and Brazil came to the US looking for money, why? Because YOUR interventions fucked up their economies. Your "economic miracle" in these nations was a disaster for the majority of the people there. And you almost never cancel debt without serious strings attached, like deregualtion of markets (the most popular tactic of the World Bank and IMF).

Notice how these countries you give "so much" aid to are countries that YOU intervened in? And also you might consider that in many case what America considers "humanitarian aid" equals arms deals to back repressive governments. See Nicaragua for a very instructive lesson.

I'm sure you'd love to do more business in Mexico. Canadians have too many pesky labor and environmental laws. We want foolish things like fair wages, benefits, security, efforts to mitigate pollution. Such trivial and prolitariat concerns are bad for profits.

You do lose me here. I haven't referenced global domination anywhere in my postings.

Sure you did:

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.

Now go back and read my comments in context, although I anticipate no reply.

I'm acutely aware of the conditions in Russia.

Then maybe you should see how other nations in "painful transition" have performed. You'll find little has changed in most under "US stewardship". The rich have become richer, but the people carry on suffering.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

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.

Valid question. And I'd contend I've done a hell of a lot more than most. I have participated in 3 overseas placements thus far, helping to teach modern organic farming practices, helping distribute medicines, and working as an assistant to a human rights lawyer.

Fact is, I probbly would be there right now, but I have responsibilities here that require my attention, namely my 4 year old son. Besides, powerful work can be done here and I still carry out that work in my everyday life. I help inform people and in my work in the arts community I work to bring a message to people every day.

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.

First off, perhaps you should look up a modern definition of "neo-liberal" that is accepted by most political scientists these days. You'll find that you are closer to "neo-liberal" than I am. Second, I'm not a "wanna-be" poor boy. I live modestly out of necessity as well as choice, but it's not as if I can call daddy and hit him up for cash. He could care less if I sink or swim at this point and I prefer it that way.

Secondly, how can one help what they are born into? Can someone who was born into wealth not have an opinion about wealth? And let me tell you, I live below what our social service agencies define as poverty, which is nothing compared to the real poverty I have seen.

I'll skip the rest of your lecture.

Of course you will. That's because you have nothing to say in rebuttal because I'm speaking the TRUTH.

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 socialism

The positives have more than enough champions out there. The negatives, however, are rarely spoken of in mainstream circles. I see it as the responsible thing to do to expose the wrongs and create dialogue towards solutions. If you succeed by coercion, lies and terror then I'll be damned right to blame you.

I have no problem with people being rich. I have a problem wiht people putting wealth and profits over ethics and social responsibility. Time and time again our institutions fail in this regard.

I'm not a socialist. I'm a man with a conscience.

Somebody has to be on top. This democracy will not yield to your socialist planet ideology.

Someone only has to be on top if you believe in "top down" models of governance, but I digress, yes some will be more successful than others which to me only heightens their responsibility in this world. If you want history to judge you as the moral and just society you claim to be, start acting it instead of paying lip service to it.

You may not yield, but you'll fall....

More to come, of course....

 

[TravellingGuy]

MIght I ask who is going to pick the airplane wreckage out of your ass? You indeed are naive if you don't think that the Islamic fundementalists wouldn't think twice about taking you out.

We may perhaps be a target, but thats only because our government continues to aid the US in what most of the world views as illegal activities (including the no-fly zone). Why wouldn't the terrorists attack us, we are aiding their greatest enemy. Canada should refuse to take part in the horrible US foreign policies. You can call us cowards or wimps if you want, but if we don't agree with what you are doing then we don't agree. A lot of the world doesnt agree (500,000 peacefull protestors in Italy may have been enough to show that, but the US media didnt even cover it the way they should have) and some day the rest of the world is going to stop supporting the US, or maybe even stand up against your government.

Outside nations are not the only ones who view your government in distain, your own citizens do. One of my best friends from the US recently described his own country as becoming Nazi Germany and yet you still wave the freedom flag.

 

[onthebottom]

Nazi Germany?

We may perhaps be a target, but thats only because our government continues to aid the US in what most of the world views as illegal activities (including the no-fly zone). Why wouldn't the terrorists attack us, we are aiding their greatest enemy. Canada should refuse to take part in the horrible US foreign policies. You can call us cowards or wimps if you want, but if we don't agree with what you are doing then we don't agree. A lot of the world doesnt agree (500,000 peacefull protestors in Italy may have been enough to show that, but the US media didnt even cover it the way they should have) and some day the rest of the world is going to stop supporting the US, or maybe even stand up against your government.

Outside nations are not the only ones who view your government in distain, your own citizens do. One of my best friends from the US recently described his own country as becoming Nazi Germany and yet you still wave the freedom flag.

An alternative for your government would be to have a distinct foreign policy and follow it thru with action. Or is this too much to expect?

And as for respecting the US, have you noticed how much more appreciative the new NATO allies are than the old. I guess when your getting your policing for free for so many years you just take it for granted.

Your friend is an idiot! Obviously he/she doesn’t know much about the US or Nazi Germany, to even make that statement requires so much stupidity it's amazing their forming multi-syllable words.

OTB

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

The paralells between America and Nazi Germany may not be obvious to those without a sense of history. But the comparison can be drawn.

Of course, the US has no "concentration camps" or "final solution". But one can draw paralells. Consider the internment camps of WWII that contained Japanese citizens. Or the prisons in which you now hold citizens without trial or charge or basic legal rights. Consider your "secret" military trials. If you want to take a real stretch, and this may not be representative of my view but it is a view held by many, the entire Ghetto system is in fact not very much different from the ghettos in Warsaw.

But the really instructive examples are thus: Consider that Hitler had his own "axis of evil". He described Poland and the Czechs as "a dagger at the heart of Germany". Flash forward to the eighties and consider our rehtoric over Nicaragua choosing to buy arms from the Soviets after we provided them no other options for self-defense. The rhetoric of that time could have almost been taken verbatim from many of Hitlers pre-war speeches. Much talk was made about Nicaragua only being 2 days mechanized march from Texas, surely "a dagger at the heart of Germany <America>". History tells us that the Polish and the Czechs were little actual threat to Germany and they armed themselves because they feared Germany. So what do you think the Nicaraguans were doing?

These same principles can be applied to our struggle with Iraq and indeed terror itself. Germany was facing a domestic financial crisis. So too, is America. War distracted the people from their financial woes and united them under the battle-standard, just as it has now. War injected so much into Germany's economy. Much as war has always done for America.

The argument could be made. It may or may not be a valid argument, but the elements are there in abundance.

PS- I would be more than happy if our goverment formed a distinct foreign policy. And indeed we have, in some respects. We defied you over Cuban sanctions. We defied you over Landmines and Kyoto. In fact, you'll find that Canada regularly votes the opposite of the US in many Security Council resolutions as does most of the world.

 

[TravellingGuy]

Re: Nazi Germany?

An alternative for your government would be to have a distinct foreign policy and follow it thru with action. Or is this too much to expect?

I completely agree with you, Canada is its own country and should be forming its own policies and commitments. I expected it of my government, but I guess that was my problem.

Your friend is an idiot! Obviously he/she doesn’t know much about the US or Nazi Germany, to even make that statement requires so much stupidity it's amazing their forming multi-syllable words.

His comments were regarding the rights to privacy that are becoming endangered by the Homeland Securities changes as well as the blatant aggressive actions of his government. Now I know him to be a well educated and thinking man, however I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call him stupid. Regardless of his intellectual level, he is a US Citizen, he is concerned about what his government is doing, he has every right to question and dissent, or atleast he did before they starting considering all who dissent to be terrorist supporters. Even if he is stupid, he represents a portion of the USA that is being over looked, and a government should never be so callous.

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Re: Re: Re: Re: part 2 :response to Dr. Gonzo post

Your point on Bosnian non-intervention is well taken. Initially I believe the view here was that the situation was not necessarily a NATO one, but a European one. That's a very self-centred, self-rightous perspective but objectively there's some validity to the point.


IMHO, I think Canadians see weaknesses in US foreign policy in that very little consideration seems to be given to the above points. For example, it seems clear that there use of military force in Iraq is imminent. How will this benefit the US? How will this benefit Iraq if Saddam is killed / ousted? How (when) will the US withdraw if a change in Iraqi government is effected?

Xarir,

Thanks for your insightful questioning. I could only wish that others would engage in questions as opposed to hysterical diatribes. Let me give you my short answers to your questions now. I am working on an essay with a little more background about my take on US foreign policy that I'll post up within a day or two.

First, I think the perception of a quick trigger is to be expected from those who are reluctant to involve military. In the case of Canada, you never have that option. We always have that option, that's the reason why we have a prosecutable foreign policy. Our policy is due to our position in the world, one which has to have global reach. Without being able to bring a good old slice of the US to a trouble spot, there is no plausible way we could deal with a situation that would require force for resolution.

An ouster of Saddam will long term allow the US to reduce it's military presence in the area. Sanctions can be immediately lifted, as opposed to what will be at least a one year inspection of dubious effectiveness. Should Saddam remain, there would need to be provisions for ongoing checkups. Even if we find nothing, it is clear we cannot trust this man to keep his word. Recall prior to the Gulf war buildup we had minimal presence in the area. With the fall of the Soviet Union, we had looked forward to further reducing our military presence. We now have a high profile due to the threat posed by Saddam and the inability of the UN to enforce its resolutions. It is clear that a lasting solution does not involve Saddam Hussain in charge of the country. The advantages to Saddam being gone are obvious in that it is his intransigence that is starving his population. The US will maintain an indefinite presence in country until such time that order is restored and the country is sufficiently sound to govern itself. Like Afghanistan, this is an open ended commitment. But the commitment guarantees stability and the right of the people in Iraq to live without tyranny. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq due to it's oil reserves is not a poor country. It has the means to pay its own reconstruction costs. There are numerous Iraqi xpats representing all factions of the population that have met to formulate plans. They have the backing of the US government.
IF we invade, Saddam will not last long. We will go door to door if necessary. If captured, I expect the man to be prosecuted for War Crimes by the World Court in the Hague.

Afghanistan on the other hand is a basket case. After 9/11 we realized that we should have executed a policy of direct involvement. It wasn't like we withdrew. We never had boots on the ground. The Soviets withdrew. There already is a plan established for settting up a permanent government in Afghanistan. Just like Germany and Japan, we are now committed to an indefinite presence in the area. We may establish permanent bases in Afghanistan and/or several of the STANs of the former Soviet Union as a clear statement of commitment to defend that region. In the meantime, we are already taking steps to train an Afghani Army to protect the nation.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

The paralells between America and Nazi Germany may not be obvious to those without a sense of history. But the comparison can be drawn.

[/i]

They are not obvious to anyone who is intellectually honest. However, we already understand your problem.

Consider the internment camps of WWII that contained Japanese citizens. Or the prisons in which you now hold citizens without trial or charge or basic legal rights. Consider your "secret" military trials.

This is a shameful part of our country's past, one from which I am sure we have learned. Note also that Germans and Italians were imprisoned in limited numbers and that we captured German Spies who had a mission to blow up US infrastructure. This was not raw paranoia. Given the hatred created by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, I often wonder if we didn't save some lives despite the apparent unconstitutionality of this process. You may note, however, that the Supreme court found this practice to be constitutional. The President is afforded some extraordinary powers during wartime, especially when there is clear threat to the homeland. We weren't attacked at home during the Korean Conflict, Viet Nam or WW1. Note we did not resort to such draconian measures. If you know as much as you'd have us believe, you'd realize that the founding fathers are on record as saying the "Constitution is not a pact with death".

If you want to take a real stretch, and this may not be representative of my view but it is a view held by many, the entire Ghetto system is in fact not very much different from the ghettos in Warsaw.

Actually, you've exceeded the elastic limit as your comparisons are bogus at best. Our "ghetto system" as you would put it bears absolutely no resemblance to the Warsaw ghetto. Ghettos come as a result of white flight from inner city and a subsequent loss of tax base. They are further created by the shift of the US economy from heavy manufacturing to technology and services. They weren't manufactured, they evolved. You lack basic familiarity with the US to even offer a comment. There were plenty of ethnic neighborhoods that were pretty decent prior to that flight to the suburbs. I grew up in one. That was a backlash created by this country taking the appropriate legislative steps to insure all citizens their constitutional rights. That my friend is a painful step taken only in a true representative democracy. In a democracy, minority rights get trampled. Canadians seem to have this certain smugness as if they live in a perfect egalitarian society. Your population is getting browner by the minute. Wait a few years. You'll know GHETTO first hand.

[/b]

Flash forward to the eighties and consider our rehtoric over Nicaragua choosing to buy arms from the Soviets after we provided them no other options for self-defense. The rhetoric of that time could have almost been taken verbatim from many of Hitlers pre-war speeches.

[/b]

I just wish you'd flash forward and talk about something relevant for a change. I'd love to talk about the faux pas of the Soviet Union during the 19th century and especially the Cold War. It's just that I can't find very much official material from their goverment. I kept looking for www.kgb.org..no dice. Perhaps www.politbureau.ru. Nope..not found. Now www.cia.org seems to work just fine and it is full of information demanded by our citizens. The disclosure of that information in the 70's caused a demand that the CIA and other covert government agencies cease their questionable activity. Of course now, there are many that blame our concious for being our weakness, as we did leave ourselves wide open for 9/11 as a result of this. Now do you think there is a prevailing sentiment to even give a shit about how you feel about CIA in the 1960s-1980s?

Much talk was made about Nicaragua only being 2 days mechanized march from Texas, surely "a dagger at the heart of Germany <America>".

Only an educated idiot could posit this as an explanation. Anyone who understands geopolitics and the nature of regional conflict clearly understands that wars taking place in our backyard cause a clear threat to our country. Once again, since you have the US on your southern border, you can and have relaxed any sense of reality due to that stability. Let us trade places with Mexico and then come back and talk to me. Until then, you're pissing on your own leg going down this path.

EBS


EBS...cont. gleefully to the next entry..

 

[scubadoo]

Personally, I think the Americans bashing Canada and the Canadians bashing the US on this board need to move on to a less controversial.


How bout we dabate the fact the Santa Claus actually looks like Hitler?

Both countires have their good and bad points. Thru out history both countries have done things well and done things bad.

Enough said on the subject, I believe that it is time to move on.

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Part deux to Dr. Gonzo....

These same principles can be applied to our struggle with Iraq and indeed terror itself. Germany was facing a domestic financial crisis. So too, is America. War distracted the people from their financial woes and united them under the battle-standard, just as it has now. War injected so much into Germany's economy. Much as war has always done for America.

I am a progressive centrist in political outlook, and I can't believe half of that. The fact is that 9/11 gave the President all he needed to focus the population on terrorism. The Art of War says something to the effect of know your enemy. One of our traditions is the Gadston flag..."don't tread on me". You attack us, and you awaken the sleeping giant. Smirk all you want about our comeuppance. Cry when you get our response. That is the rally cause. Nobody attacked Germany. That was a bunch of folks with an inferiority complex left over after getting their ass summarily dismissed in WW1 trying to define a new European world order. The timing of Bush expressing concern about Iraq was clearly leveraged for the mid-term election. The merits of the case don't change regardless. Those merits have nothing to do with terrorism or a direct or eminent threat to the US. They have everything to do with a stable Middle East Gulf and economic security for all the world economy. Every last one of those European pigs are feeding at the oil trough. They are looking for their cheap secure oil supply as well. We have a stalemated engagement with Iraq at this time, one which is causing us to expend our resources with no clear longterm benefit. It's pretty easy for the santimonious blowing hot gases out of their backside to offer self righteous judgement. But I consider the source..they want the same thing we do. Only one problem..we're the only ones capable of prosecuting a solution.

PS- I would be more than happy if our goverment formed a distinct foreign policy. And indeed we have, in some respects. We defied you over Cuban sanctions. We defied you over Landmines and Kyoto. In fact, you'll find that Canada regularly votes the opposite of the US in many Security Council resolutions as does most of the world.

I'd be more than happy for your government to do so as well. We'd pay more attention to "Moron" remarks than a Canadian foreign policy. Your nation is a toothless tiger. Who cares. You can't enforce your policies. Why not just say that when the shooting breaks out, you're going to duck for cover for fear of offending somebody. Or state the obvious..you'll go anywhere for show, but when it comes to doing the real work, you'll leave it to the big boys. Just remember as the Ottaman's remind us.."to the victor belongs the Sultantate" a precursor of "to the victor belongs the spoils". In the hierarchy of the hunt, the cubs get the leftovers..hehe..

That digging aside, this is the most eloquent statement of what I consider to be a pathetic self loathing pathology in many Canadians. I usually have these discussions face to face while in Canada. I love to engage anyone and everyone in discussions like this. I speak much faster than I type. In a way I consider this is a back handed complement. When I define myself as an American, I don't take in consideration the values or beliefs of Canadians. That's why we are who we are...capiche?

EBS