Lame. You guys can't both use the same quote as your signature. DigitalMonkeyBoy gets dibs since he is from Canadia. You'll have to find something else groverat said for a signature BRussell.
True but thats not all. For a limited time only we put up with the sickening oppression of your impoverished citizens. Socioeconomic disparity between the races? You betcha!
We help to balance the table charlie, and you can send your thanks in the mail.
What, exactly, did Canada do about racism in America?
Quote:
That doesn't follow. You are thinking that since the US super-power is next door that is the reason no one hates Canada. The real reason is we don't promote regime change all across the friggin world and deny human rights offenses during "forgotten" wars and installation of dictators...
We to to war under UN sanction because it means theres something to go to war for.
We also promote multi-culturalism which is a far cry from your giant melting pot with a Christian-or-bust placard sticking out of it.
You miss my point.
Any nation in the position that Canada is in would be behaving the exact same way. You will notice that rich college kids are, by and large, very willing to extoll idealistic virtues and scoff at those with jobs. Same theory.
Of course no one hates Canada, why would they? Canada wouldn't have the power to do anything like that even if they didn't want to. Canadians can afford to sit protected and act pompous and superior because they have no real reason to be concerned about any international issues.
You may not say that. You are not an authority onm what people think across the world. People who look to Canada to accept them, bar no creed, faith or colour.
The immigrants here whom I know are very happy to be in Canada, saying that they are free to practice the ritual of life as they see fit and not have to convert to ideals before they will be accepted in society.
Hilarious. I find it amazing that you condescend to the US about immigration and multi-culturalism. Absolutely hilarious.
"People who look to Canada to accept them..."
Yeah, that's the world dream. "One day, I will get to Canada."
I would also be happy to live in Canada. I also enjoy having privelege that I do not earn when I can get it.
Quote:
Back-up the trolly. YOU dare call is a terrorist conduit? Suck a lemon. There's no call for that accusation, its entirely baseless.
Entirely baseless? You sure?
Where did Atta get through again?... I'm thinking of a country that rhymes with "Anada".
Quote:
Ethics not moral. Someone has to posture. You sure as hell aren't.
Wait, I thought you just said "Watch the assumtpions. There is not such dichotomy put forth by any Canadian here."
Notice how I come out and say what I mean? Try it some time.
Quote:
Dude, the crap that comes out of American politicians is SICK. You're blind and completely unacknowledging of the things that have happened.
Like what?
Has one of our congressmen said, "Canadians, I hate those bastards."?
Quote:
Columnists saying things like "It must be so hard living next to such a great country when there's nothing that great about your own."
Columnists? Who gives a crap about columnists? We're talking about government officials here.
Quote:
...I will remind you the WORLD OPPOSED as well as BUSH!
Using capital letters doesn't make fiction fact. The Coalition of 45 fictional nations.
"They were bribed and bullied!"
"Which ones?"
"*crickets chirping*"
Quote:
Canada's opinion IS VALID and we will write and write and march until the part of the US that represents YOU groverat gets the picture!
There is more to THIS WORLD THAN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!
I know there is more to the world than the United States. You seem to be the one that is confused.
Telling Canadians that US would be there for Canada if roles would be reversed is a load of ****.
Why can't US respect position of independent governments?
How many of you believe that this war will change something for the better in Iraqis lives?
For political system / regime (as US likes to call it) to change it has to be a movement from the inside, as long as people won't take matters in their own hands any artificially placed government won't work. Even if that means bloody revolt against current government.
In my opinion Canada for once showed some balls. :-)
And what happens if there are no chemical or biological weapons found?
Will 'regime change' be sufficient reason for this loss of lives and destruction of Iraq?
Never said we did anything about racism. Said we were big multi-culturists, balance the table.
Thats not the same theory. Canada has different policy from the US. We follow UN sanctioning to war. Period.
If we had people whop hated us we'd liekly havea bigger military.
I think since your military is 1.4million in size and it costs so 100s of billions of dollars to keep running and that its the most powerful it is thus necessary. You've dug yourself a hole and you need it now.
It wasn't necessary. A humnitarian USA would be the same as Canada. No one would hate US if your policy involved a hell of a lot more respect for the world.
What's hilarious about it? 8) Explain your point before you make the appeal to insult.
Whoa never said that all immigrants want to get to Canda. Your mistake, its okay, here's a cookie for your efforts.
Said that it was a great place to immigrate t obasically and that it would be favourable especially now to US because of racial profiling and other racist moves.
We're not a terrorist conduit. Get a real source to define that.
YOU said
Quote:
So pardon me when I scoff at Canadian moral posturing.
To which I replied "ethics not morals" which is a correction. Morals are different from ethics. Ethics are reasoned and Morals are more religious in a sense.
Where's the assumption or dichotomyon my part?
Thats right...you aren't posturing...you are just going with policy and administration. .. Whats the issue?
Quote:
Notice how I come out and say what I mean?
Whats stated is as it is intended to be understood. No further implications are expected for you to make all by yourself.
This coalition of the willing has nothing to do with the actual nations that still by the way opposed the action...whats the point here?
Quote:
You seem to be the one that is confused.
Re:
Quote:
The United States is important. Canada is not.
You duke em out, you said it.
Yes I am confused. On one hand you simply throw us aside, call us easy to forget and then pretend that you know all about the world and that oh yes you like all those nations. Well the stance you take as high-almighty doesn't fit with a model of international interest.
Be against the war, that's fine, just have your leaders shut their insignificant talk-holes if they can't think of anything better to spew than insults about our leaders. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Believe me, you're easy to forget.
Those (such as Paul Celucci) who are in positions of power have significantly greater responsibilities and realities to accept. Just because you don't have connections to Canada does not entail that such diplomatic trouble is irrelevant or excusable to millions of other people: citizens of Canada, US citizens with family and friends in Canada, and perhaps most importantly to the US as a whole, those with business ties to Canada.
Never said we did anything about racism. Said we were big multi-culturists, balance the table.
Canada was big on multi-culturalism in the time the US had slaves, eh?
Quote:
Thats not the same theory. Canada has different policy from the US. We follow UN sanctioning to war. Period.
I don't deny that at all. You have a different policy. To you the idea of giving over sovreignty on matters of security to an organization like the UN makes no difference because you don't have to provide for your own defense anyway.
Any nation in your position would be acting the same. I find it amazing that nations such as Canada has citizens that believe their progressive attitudes are anything more than a byproduct of their position of privelege.
I'd like to see your social structure as it is remain intact if given the task of defending the entire world.
Quote:
If we had people whop hated us we'd liekly havea bigger military.
Of course no one hates you. Why would they? You don't do anything. You make no difference.
Quote:
I think since your military is 1.4million in size and it costs so 100s of billions of dollars to keep running and that its the most powerful it is thus necessary. You've dug yourself a hole and you need it now.
So because we had a big military we came to need it? What sense does that make?
Quote:
It wasn't necessary.
Oh... a heavily militarized United States was not necessary, eh?
Not necessary in WWII? Not necessary against Stalinist Russian aggression? My my my how soon we forget history.
The spoiled child always wonders why the parent bothers going to work.
Quote:
A humnitarian USA would be the same as Canada. No one would hate US if your policy involved a hell of a lot more respect for the world.
Yes, and if the world were made of cotton candy and everybody were bestest of friends no one would need a military ever!
Wouldn't that be so neato!
"Don't tell me about evil men like Hitler or Hussein or Pol Pot, daddy, I'm trying to convince myself we don't need to every fight anyway ever. We always bring it on ourselves."
Quote:
What's hilarious about it?
Hilarious to me that you condescend about multi-culturalism to The Great Experiment. The most powerful nation in the world built on immigration. A nation of people from other nations united to be the greatest world power in the history of man.
Yeah, Canada is a real bastion of multi-culturalism compared to the US.
Quote:
Said that it was a great place to immigrate t obasically and that it would be favourable especially now to US because of racial profiling and other racist moves.
What racial profiling? What "other racist moves"?
Quote:
This coalition of the willing has nothing to do with the actual nations that still by the way opposed the action...whats the point here?
Because you post illogical and silly things like this:
...I will remind you the WORLD OPPOSED as well as BUSH!
The world did not oppose this action. You are wrong. You lied. That is why I mention the coalition.
I do not care that other nations protest, I only care that we do what is right.
It is easy for nations like Canada to give their power up when they have no power. The military of my United States is not a weapon to be wielded by international bodies and bent to international will. The military answers to one man, the commander and chief of my nation. Not to Belgian diplomats, not to anti-American Canadian MPs.
America has done plenty of things wrong in the past, sure, but I don't think we should prostrate ourselves before the jealous world and render unto the UN what is rightfully ours.
Oh... a heavily militarized United States was not necessary, eh?
Not necessary in WWII? Not necessary against Stalinist Russian aggression? My my my how soon we forget history.
Or here:
is easy for nations like Canada to give their power up when they have no power. The military of my United States is not a weapon to be wielded by international bodies and bent to international will. The military answers to one man, the commander and chief of my nation. Not to Belgian diplomats, not to anti-American Canadian MPs.
If you are part of UN, then yes you should bent to international will.
There are no wars for freedom groverat. Do you really think that US led coalition is liberating these people?
BTW, Canadians, please: no flag waving. I hate flag waving and 'we're so much better because...' type crap.
Of course, we will see which ideology is the better, more sustainable one; Project for a New American Century (OMFG!) or peaceful diplomacy as history unfolds. And by history I mean the very near future...
I think a core, central reason for Canada/Russia/China/Germany/France/etc etc's lack of support for this 'pre-emptive' war is a serious distrust of the American administration and its motives. And when PfaNAC-type shit leaks out, well, no wonder.
If we had people whop hated us we'd liekly havea bigger military.
I think since your military is 1.4million in size and it costs so 100s of billions of dollars to keep running and that its the most powerful it is thus necessary. You've dug yourself a hole and you need it now.
It wasn't necessary. A humnitarian USA would be the same as Canada. No one would hate US if your policy involved a hell of a lot more respect for the world.
How exactly did they dig themselves a hole by having a large military? The arms race was crazy and caused far to much to be spent, but as a balance to the USSR, it was needed. Deny it if you want, but a strong US military has been a necessity.
You fool yourself if you think were aren't hated in Canada too. Just because the current Liberal govenment practices appeasement more than the US does hasn't caused all the world to love us.
And the main reason Canada is able to have as small a military as we do, is because of the umbrella we fall under from the US. If the US had a dramatically smaller military, ours would be larger than it is now. We can afford to keep it small, because their size and might offsets our limitations. If you feel we keep it small simply because we want to, why not eliminate it entirely? Simple, because we do need an armed forces and the US umbrella allows us to keep it to a minimum.
As far as the US ambasador, he has every right to speak on the matter. It is after all his job to be concerned with relations between our countries. It should be a matter of concern to him that our natural resources minister is speaking out to criticise the US govenment. While he has every right to do so, perception is important, and his negative remarks, outside of his purview, (his portfolio after all doesn't involve foriegn relations) would probably serve to sour relations. So, the ambassador comments on this. How is that wrong? It is closer to his job description to comment on the situation than it was Dhaliwal's to comment on the war. Both are free to say what they want, but in terms of what they are expected to officially comment on, the ambasador was more in-line.
Canada isn't involved in the war and that's our right. So, our natural resources minister sees it as his place to critisize the US position and leadership and that' s ok to you, but an ambassador, who's job is foreign relations speaks about an issue between the two countries and you take issue with it? When he speaks of disiplining Dhaliwal, his concern is a govenment minister making statements outside of his portfolio and passing them off as govenment position. If what Dhaliwal said is not line with government position, the govenment should point this out. If Rumsfeld started spouting off to the media about what a big pussy Chretien is, do you think our amnassador might take issue with that?
You also don't like him making comments about our policy towards the war? Well, if our natural resources minister can spout off about their policies, why can't an ambassador comment on ours?
Blackmail? I don't think so. Statement of fact. We probably will pay a price. So what. The US will pay a price for their actions, we will pay a price for ours. It's called life. US companies probably will be touchy about Canada now, (a few and only somewhat I think), the US might be less inclined to deal with us on our terms (not that they do it much now).
And the main reason Canada is able to have as small a military as we do, is because of the umbrella we fall under from the US. If the US had a dramatically smaller military, ours would be larger than it is now. We can afford to keep it small, because their size and might offsets our limitations. If you feel we keep it small simply because we want to, why not eliminate it entirely? Simple, because we do need an armed forces and the US umbrella allows us to keep it to a minimum.
That's the crazy-weakest arguement I've read in at least three minutes! The reason we have such a small army is NOT (merely) because of our friendy neighbors to the south, but because we are an OCEAN away from any potential invader. WTF is going to invade Canada, Siberians across the Bering straight? Mexicans, swarming across the Continental USA on their way to take over Canada? The Norwegian navy sailing across the Atlantic Ocean, ready to storm the beaches of Newfoundland?
How big is Antarctica's airforce?! Iceland's Navy?
The only POTENTIAL invader, geographically speaking, would be the USA themselves. So let's try not to piss of groverat too much, his nuke-launching finger is twitchy in times of stress.
ANOTHER reason we have such a small army is because the population of our entire country is smaller than the pop. of NY State.
Another reason is because we a) aren't about to invade any countries and b) haven't had to defend our land since we opened up a can of whup-ass on America in the War of 1812. Why the hell should we spend more on our military than we already do?! There are more pressing issues like health, education, crime, etc.
Edit: I should point out that the rest of your post was well-reasoned. It's just the umpteenth time I've heard the Canada/US military arguement...
Perhaps we can ask the Iraqi people once the final body count is done.
I'll make a deal with you.
You can have what the body count would be with "peace" during the same time it takes for war. I take Iraqi civilian war casualties and you take civilian casualties of UN sanctions.
Since we won't get a running tally for you, you have the following equation: 274 x #Days
That's the crazy-weakest arguement I've read in at least three minutes! The reason we have such a small army is NOT (merely) because of our friendy neighbors to the south, but because we are an OCEAN away from any potential invader. WTF is going to invade Canada, Siberians across the Bering straight? Mexicans, swarming across the Continental USA on their way to take over Canada? The Norwegian navy sailing across the Atlantic Ocean, ready to storm the beaches of Newfoundland?
How big is Antarctica's airforce?! Iceland's Navy?
The only POTENTIAL invader, geographically speaking, would be the USA themselves. So let's try not to piss of groverat too much, his nuke-launching finger is twitchy in times of stress.
ANOTHER reason we have such a small army is because the population of our entire country is smaller than the pop. of NY State.
Another reason is because we a) aren't about to invade any countries and b) haven't had to defend our land since we opened up a can of whup-ass on America in the War of 1812. Why the hell should we spend more on our military than we already do?! There are more pressing issues like health, education, crime, etc.
Edit: I should point out that the rest of your post was well-reasoned. It's just the umpteenth time I've heard the Canada/US military arguement...
So, assuming for a moment the US wasn't our 'big friend to the south', do you think we could have deterred the USSR from coming on over during the cold war? There was joke when I was a kid about about if Russia ever wanted to invade us, we would have to resist using our WW2 rifles, our 2 airplanes and a couple boy scout troops. Geographic location alone doesn't account for our safety, neither though does the US, I know. But, the US is on the same side of the Atlantic and pacific as we, yet it didn't stop Japan from trying. Wouldn't have stopped Germany either. And it didn't stop 9/11. So a military is necessary, obviously. The strength of the US military held japan in check and defeated them. Think we could have if they had targeted us first?
I've got a plan groverat. Quit insulting my validity and importance on the ground that "thats where I belong" which is where you place yourself and your country and I'll not delve into the history of the US or your administration. Your overall strategy in this thread was to stomp down my voice...not necessariyl Canada. Since you don't even agree with the assertions I put forth it seems useless to continue.
You talk about my extolling moral superiority when all I am doing is bringing to light the conflict in the arguement that this war is justified and countered that the US is responsible for a lot of regime change in histroy that has causes major casualties.
Most of all, I begun this thread angry with Celluci for throwing our aid to the US, our acceptance of the US policy (as in not mobilising to stop it) which we find too trigger-friendly, in our face!
If anyone is asserting themselves as superior its you and THATS the problem. Thats why I argue with you.
"The United States is important, Canada is not" and saying that "we belong" (as if you yourself have the right to say where 30 000 000 people belong) under the shadow [of the US].
You see, you keep talking about my place on earth and your superiorty (which is simply arrogant) and saying oh its fine that we aren't involved and bla bla bla but then turn round and say its because of something, something negative.
Thats dumb. Its also, again, arrogant. Accept the beauty of your individuality groverat but do not plow it onto me. I won't take it.
They dug themselves a hole (and of course both you and groverat bring up times after the digging began) all right and that is the reason for the predicament.
If foreign policy in the 30s had been kinder and the administration less instilled with patriotic rederick, they would have moblised FASTER for the 2nd world war! It wa the independence of America that stopped them from joining as early as they would have! Don't give me this "America to the rescue" garbage, the US held out on the world for quite a few years.
The size of your military and for god sake, $75 billion would be made for a very sweet humanitarian package instead of blasting into. The United States has the money to win the world's iopinion through highly publicised aid campaigns and of course fairer censorship, allowing OTHER VOICES a chance to speak with policy advisors.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
The United States is important. Canada is not.
And this guy's a moderator?
On a positive note, he sure does provide sig fodder.
True but thats not all. For a limited time only we put up with the sickening oppression of your impoverished citizens. Socioeconomic disparity between the races? You betcha!
We help to balance the table charlie, and you can send your thanks in the mail.
What, exactly, did Canada do about racism in America?
That doesn't follow. You are thinking that since the US super-power is next door that is the reason no one hates Canada. The real reason is we don't promote regime change all across the friggin world and deny human rights offenses during "forgotten" wars and installation of dictators...
We to to war under UN sanction because it means theres something to go to war for.
We also promote multi-culturalism which is a far cry from your giant melting pot with a Christian-or-bust placard sticking out of it.
You miss my point.
Any nation in the position that Canada is in would be behaving the exact same way. You will notice that rich college kids are, by and large, very willing to extoll idealistic virtues and scoff at those with jobs. Same theory.
Of course no one hates Canada, why would they? Canada wouldn't have the power to do anything like that even if they didn't want to. Canadians can afford to sit protected and act pompous and superior because they have no real reason to be concerned about any international issues.
Read.
You may not say that. You are not an authority onm what people think across the world. People who look to Canada to accept them, bar no creed, faith or colour.
The immigrants here whom I know are very happy to be in Canada, saying that they are free to practice the ritual of life as they see fit and not have to convert to ideals before they will be accepted in society.
Hilarious. I find it amazing that you condescend to the US about immigration and multi-culturalism. Absolutely hilarious.
"People who look to Canada to accept them..."
Yeah, that's the world dream. "One day, I will get to Canada."
I would also be happy to live in Canada. I also enjoy having privelege that I do not earn when I can get it.
Back-up the trolly. YOU dare call is a terrorist conduit? Suck a lemon. There's no call for that accusation, its entirely baseless.
Entirely baseless? You sure?
Where did Atta get through again?... I'm thinking of a country that rhymes with "Anada".
Ethics not moral. Someone has to posture. You sure as hell aren't.
Wait, I thought you just said "Watch the assumtpions. There is not such dichotomy put forth by any Canadian here."
Notice how I come out and say what I mean? Try it some time.
Dude, the crap that comes out of American politicians is SICK. You're blind and completely unacknowledging of the things that have happened.
Like what?
Has one of our congressmen said, "Canadians, I hate those bastards."?
Columnists saying things like "It must be so hard living next to such a great country when there's nothing that great about your own."
Columnists? Who gives a crap about columnists? We're talking about government officials here.
...I will remind you the WORLD OPPOSED as well as BUSH!
Using capital letters doesn't make fiction fact. The Coalition of 45 fictional nations.
"They were bribed and bullied!"
"Which ones?"
"*crickets chirping*"
Canada's opinion IS VALID and we will write and write and march until the part of the US that represents YOU groverat gets the picture!
There is more to THIS WORLD THAN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!
I know there is more to the world than the United States. You seem to be the one that is confused.
I know that I like the following nations:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain
Turkey, United Kingdom & Uzbekistan. And a handful more.
Dog bless the Unilateral States of America!
Telling Canadians that US would be there for Canada if roles would be reversed is a load of ****.
Why can't US respect position of independent governments?
How many of you believe that this war will change something for the better in Iraqis lives?
For political system / regime (as US likes to call it) to change it has to be a movement from the inside, as long as people won't take matters in their own hands any artificially placed government won't work. Even if that means bloody revolt against current government.
In my opinion Canada for once showed some balls. :-)
And what happens if there are no chemical or biological weapons found?
Will 'regime change' be sufficient reason for this loss of lives and destruction of Iraq?
This is just wrong.
Never said we did anything about racism. Said we were big multi-culturists, balance the table.
Thats not the same theory. Canada has different policy from the US. We follow UN sanctioning to war. Period.
If we had people whop hated us we'd liekly havea bigger military.
I think since your military is 1.4million in size and it costs so 100s of billions of dollars to keep running and that its the most powerful it is thus necessary. You've dug yourself a hole and you need it now.
It wasn't necessary. A humnitarian USA would be the same as Canada. No one would hate US if your policy involved a hell of a lot more respect for the world.
What's hilarious about it? 8) Explain your point before you make the appeal to insult.
Whoa never said that all immigrants want to get to Canda. Your mistake, its okay, here's a cookie for your efforts.
Said that it was a great place to immigrate t obasically and that it would be favourable especially now to US because of racial profiling and other racist moves.
We're not a terrorist conduit. Get a real source to define that.
YOU said
So pardon me when I scoff at Canadian moral posturing.
To which I replied "ethics not morals" which is a correction. Morals are different from ethics. Ethics are reasoned and Morals are more religious in a sense.
Where's the assumption or dichotomyon my part?
Thats right...you aren't posturing...you are just going with policy and administration. .. Whats the issue?
Notice how I come out and say what I mean?
Whats stated is as it is intended to be understood. No further implications are expected for you to make all by yourself.
This coalition of the willing has nothing to do with the actual nations that still by the way opposed the action...whats the point here?
You seem to be the one that is confused.
Re:
The United States is important. Canada is not.
You duke em out, you said it.
Yes I am confused. On one hand you simply throw us aside, call us easy to forget and then pretend that you know all about the world and that oh yes you like all those nations. Well the stance you take as high-almighty doesn't fit with a model of international interest.
Be against the war, that's fine, just have your leaders shut their insignificant talk-holes if they can't think of anything better to spew than insults about our leaders. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Believe me, you're easy to forget.
Those (such as Paul Celucci) who are in positions of power have significantly greater responsibilities and realities to accept. Just because you don't have connections to Canada does not entail that such diplomatic trouble is irrelevant or excusable to millions of other people: citizens of Canada, US citizens with family and friends in Canada, and perhaps most importantly to the US as a whole, those with business ties to Canada.
Originally posted by groverat
What's a Canada?
I hate to break the news to you but Halifax is probably the greatest city on earth.
Never said we did anything about racism. Said we were big multi-culturists, balance the table.
Canada was big on multi-culturalism in the time the US had slaves, eh?
Thats not the same theory. Canada has different policy from the US. We follow UN sanctioning to war. Period.
I don't deny that at all. You have a different policy. To you the idea of giving over sovreignty on matters of security to an organization like the UN makes no difference because you don't have to provide for your own defense anyway.
Any nation in your position would be acting the same. I find it amazing that nations such as Canada has citizens that believe their progressive attitudes are anything more than a byproduct of their position of privelege.
I'd like to see your social structure as it is remain intact if given the task of defending the entire world.
If we had people whop hated us we'd liekly havea bigger military.
Of course no one hates you. Why would they? You don't do anything. You make no difference.
I think since your military is 1.4million in size and it costs so 100s of billions of dollars to keep running and that its the most powerful it is thus necessary. You've dug yourself a hole and you need it now.
So because we had a big military we came to need it? What sense does that make?
It wasn't necessary.
Oh... a heavily militarized United States was not necessary, eh?
Not necessary in WWII? Not necessary against Stalinist Russian aggression? My my my how soon we forget history.
The spoiled child always wonders why the parent bothers going to work.
A humnitarian USA would be the same as Canada. No one would hate US if your policy involved a hell of a lot more respect for the world.
Yes, and if the world were made of cotton candy and everybody were bestest of friends no one would need a military ever!
Wouldn't that be so neato!
"Don't tell me about evil men like Hitler or Hussein or Pol Pot, daddy, I'm trying to convince myself we don't need to every fight anyway ever. We always bring it on ourselves."
What's hilarious about it?
Hilarious to me that you condescend about multi-culturalism to The Great Experiment. The most powerful nation in the world built on immigration. A nation of people from other nations united to be the greatest world power in the history of man.
Yeah, Canada is a real bastion of multi-culturalism compared to the US.
Said that it was a great place to immigrate t obasically and that it would be favourable especially now to US because of racial profiling and other racist moves.
What racial profiling? What "other racist moves"?
This coalition of the willing has nothing to do with the actual nations that still by the way opposed the action...whats the point here?
Because you post illogical and silly things like this:
...I will remind you the WORLD OPPOSED as well as BUSH!
The world did not oppose this action. You are wrong. You lied. That is why I mention the coalition.
I do not care that other nations protest, I only care that we do what is right.
It is easy for nations like Canada to give their power up when they have no power. The military of my United States is not a weapon to be wielded by international bodies and bent to international will. The military answers to one man, the commander and chief of my nation. Not to Belgian diplomats, not to anti-American Canadian MPs.
America has done plenty of things wrong in the past, sure, but I don't think we should prostrate ourselves before the jealous world and render unto the UN what is rightfully ours.
what the hell are u talking about here?
Oh... a heavily militarized United States was not necessary, eh?
Not necessary in WWII? Not necessary against Stalinist Russian aggression? My my my how soon we forget history.
Or here:
is easy for nations like Canada to give their power up when they have no power. The military of my United States is not a weapon to be wielded by international bodies and bent to international will. The military answers to one man, the commander and chief of my nation. Not to Belgian diplomats, not to anti-American Canadian MPs.
If you are part of UN, then yes you should bent to international will.
There are no wars for freedom groverat. Do you really think that US led coalition is liberating these people?
Originally posted by piwozniak
There are no wars for freedom groverat.
Do you really think that US led coalition is liberating these people?
Absolutely. And quite a few of the Iraqi people think so as well.
BTW, Canadians, please: no flag waving. I hate flag waving and 'we're so much better because...' type crap.
Of course, we will see which ideology is the better, more sustainable one; Project for a New American Century (OMFG!) or peaceful diplomacy as history unfolds. And by history I mean the very near future...
I think a core, central reason for Canada/Russia/China/Germany/France/etc etc's lack of support for this 'pre-emptive' war is a serious distrust of the American administration and its motives. And when PfaNAC-type shit leaks out, well, no wonder.
FLAME ON!!!
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
If we had people whop hated us we'd liekly havea bigger military.
I think since your military is 1.4million in size and it costs so 100s of billions of dollars to keep running and that its the most powerful it is thus necessary. You've dug yourself a hole and you need it now.
It wasn't necessary. A humnitarian USA would be the same as Canada. No one would hate US if your policy involved a hell of a lot more respect for the world.
How exactly did they dig themselves a hole by having a large military? The arms race was crazy and caused far to much to be spent, but as a balance to the USSR, it was needed. Deny it if you want, but a strong US military has been a necessity.
You fool yourself if you think were aren't hated in Canada too. Just because the current Liberal govenment practices appeasement more than the US does hasn't caused all the world to love us.
And the main reason Canada is able to have as small a military as we do, is because of the umbrella we fall under from the US. If the US had a dramatically smaller military, ours would be larger than it is now. We can afford to keep it small, because their size and might offsets our limitations. If you feel we keep it small simply because we want to, why not eliminate it entirely? Simple, because we do need an armed forces and the US umbrella allows us to keep it to a minimum.
As far as the US ambasador, he has every right to speak on the matter. It is after all his job to be concerned with relations between our countries. It should be a matter of concern to him that our natural resources minister is speaking out to criticise the US govenment. While he has every right to do so, perception is important, and his negative remarks, outside of his purview, (his portfolio after all doesn't involve foriegn relations) would probably serve to sour relations. So, the ambassador comments on this. How is that wrong? It is closer to his job description to comment on the situation than it was Dhaliwal's to comment on the war. Both are free to say what they want, but in terms of what they are expected to officially comment on, the ambasador was more in-line.
Canada isn't involved in the war and that's our right. So, our natural resources minister sees it as his place to critisize the US position and leadership and that' s ok to you, but an ambassador, who's job is foreign relations speaks about an issue between the two countries and you take issue with it? When he speaks of disiplining Dhaliwal, his concern is a govenment minister making statements outside of his portfolio and passing them off as govenment position. If what Dhaliwal said is not line with government position, the govenment should point this out. If Rumsfeld started spouting off to the media about what a big pussy Chretien is, do you think our amnassador might take issue with that?
You also don't like him making comments about our policy towards the war? Well, if our natural resources minister can spout off about their policies, why can't an ambassador comment on ours?
Blackmail? I don't think so. Statement of fact. We probably will pay a price. So what. The US will pay a price for their actions, we will pay a price for ours. It's called life. US companies probably will be touchy about Canada now, (a few and only somewhat I think), the US might be less inclined to deal with us on our terms (not that they do it much now).
Originally posted by Mac The Fork
Halifax. Halifax, Nova Scotia. It's up near Maine.
Originally posted by groverat
Do you really think that US led coalition is liberating these people?
Absolutely. And quite a few of the Iraqi people think so as well.
Perhaps we can ask the Iraqi people once the final body count is done.
And the main reason Canada is able to have as small a military as we do, is because of the umbrella we fall under from the US. If the US had a dramatically smaller military, ours would be larger than it is now. We can afford to keep it small, because their size and might offsets our limitations. If you feel we keep it small simply because we want to, why not eliminate it entirely? Simple, because we do need an armed forces and the US umbrella allows us to keep it to a minimum.
That's the crazy-weakest arguement I've read in at least three minutes! The reason we have such a small army is NOT (merely) because of our friendy neighbors to the south, but because we are an OCEAN away from any potential invader. WTF is going to invade Canada, Siberians across the Bering straight? Mexicans, swarming across the Continental USA on their way to take over Canada? The Norwegian navy sailing across the Atlantic Ocean, ready to storm the beaches of Newfoundland?
How big is Antarctica's airforce?! Iceland's Navy?
The only POTENTIAL invader, geographically speaking, would be the USA themselves. So let's try not to piss of groverat too much, his nuke-launching finger is twitchy in times of stress.
ANOTHER reason we have such a small army is because the population of our entire country is smaller than the pop. of NY State.
Another reason is because we a) aren't about to invade any countries and b) haven't had to defend our land since we opened up a can of whup-ass on America in the War of 1812. Why the hell should we spend more on our military than we already do?! There are more pressing issues like health, education, crime, etc.
Edit: I should point out that the rest of your post was well-reasoned. It's just the umpteenth time I've heard the Canada/US military arguement...
Originally posted by satchmo
Perhaps we can ask the Iraqi people once the final body count is done.
I'll make a deal with you.
You can have what the body count would be with "peace" during the same time it takes for war. I take Iraqi civilian war casualties and you take civilian casualties of UN sanctions.
Since we won't get a running tally for you, you have the following equation: 274 x #Days
Then we'll total up civilian casualties from war.
Let's see who "wins"!
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
That's the crazy-weakest arguement I've read in at least three minutes! The reason we have such a small army is NOT (merely) because of our friendy neighbors to the south, but because we are an OCEAN away from any potential invader. WTF is going to invade Canada, Siberians across the Bering straight? Mexicans, swarming across the Continental USA on their way to take over Canada? The Norwegian navy sailing across the Atlantic Ocean, ready to storm the beaches of Newfoundland?
How big is Antarctica's airforce?! Iceland's Navy?
The only POTENTIAL invader, geographically speaking, would be the USA themselves. So let's try not to piss of groverat too much, his nuke-launching finger is twitchy in times of stress.
ANOTHER reason we have such a small army is because the population of our entire country is smaller than the pop. of NY State.
Another reason is because we a) aren't about to invade any countries and b) haven't had to defend our land since we opened up a can of whup-ass on America in the War of 1812. Why the hell should we spend more on our military than we already do?! There are more pressing issues like health, education, crime, etc.
Edit: I should point out that the rest of your post was well-reasoned. It's just the umpteenth time I've heard the Canada/US military arguement...
So, assuming for a moment the US wasn't our 'big friend to the south', do you think we could have deterred the USSR from coming on over during the cold war? There was joke when I was a kid about about if Russia ever wanted to invade us, we would have to resist using our WW2 rifles, our 2 airplanes and a couple boy scout troops. Geographic location alone doesn't account for our safety, neither though does the US, I know. But, the US is on the same side of the Atlantic and pacific as we, yet it didn't stop Japan from trying. Wouldn't have stopped Germany either. And it didn't stop 9/11. So a military is necessary, obviously. The strength of the US military held japan in check and defeated them. Think we could have if they had targeted us first?
You talk about my extolling moral superiority when all I am doing is bringing to light the conflict in the arguement that this war is justified and countered that the US is responsible for a lot of regime change in histroy that has causes major casualties.
Most of all, I begun this thread angry with Celluci for throwing our aid to the US, our acceptance of the US policy (as in not mobilising to stop it) which we find too trigger-friendly, in our face!
If anyone is asserting themselves as superior its you and THATS the problem. Thats why I argue with you.
"The United States is important, Canada is not" and saying that "we belong" (as if you yourself have the right to say where 30 000 000 people belong) under the shadow [of the US].
You see, you keep talking about my place on earth and your superiorty (which is simply arrogant) and saying oh its fine that we aren't involved and bla bla bla but then turn round and say its because of something, something negative.
Thats dumb. Its also, again, arrogant. Accept the beauty of your individuality groverat but do not plow it onto me. I won't take it.
They dug themselves a hole (and of course both you and groverat bring up times after the digging began) all right and that is the reason for the predicament.
If foreign policy in the 30s had been kinder and the administration less instilled with patriotic rederick, they would have moblised FASTER for the 2nd world war! It wa the independence of America that stopped them from joining as early as they would have! Don't give me this "America to the rescue" garbage, the US held out on the world for quite a few years.
The size of your military and for god sake, $75 billion would be made for a very sweet humanitarian package instead of blasting into. The United States has the money to win the world's iopinion through highly publicised aid campaigns and of course fairer censorship, allowing OTHER VOICES a chance to speak with policy advisors.