How is calling Canada, a country with all these entitlements, a socialist nanny state an insult? A lot of people on this board tend to think the Canadian system of health care and social welfare are really great, so why would that be an insult to merely say that they are big proponents of this sort of thing. Second, I'm glad we are not the best in multiculturalism, because I'm glad we are not a balkanized hellhole of hyphenated Americans. By public access I imagine you mean that the govt. bankrolls R & D, which I am not in support of at all. Those surveys that are done about the "best" places to live measure a bunch of factors that tend to favor the socialist utopian states of Europe vs. our evil, capitalistic, gun-totting, liberty enjoying, heartless society. I'm glad we are not the best in such a measure. I own four cars, two 4-wheelers, a boat, a nice house and 25 acres of land. In Europe, for the same amount of money I make here, I'd have a little ****box deathtrap, live in a cramped apartment and pay exorbiant taxes. I'll take our "not the best" society anyday of the week. And on the civil liberties front, we were the first to put them in law. Name one way the government has corralled your ability to criticize them under the First Amendment. Name another country that has something similar with a similar force of law as our Bill of Rights? The theory on jealousy is a simple one. We have this great economy and a powerful military. We are everywhere, both economically and unfortunately, militarily as well. When you're the guy on the top, everyone wants to knock you off and replace you as king of the hill. China and Russia are working together now to combine their power to try to provide a check on ours. Europe tries to use the international system to provide a check on our power. If you are not jealous of someone's power, why would go to such great lengths to stop it if you didn't want that power for yourself? Which treaties did we back out of before WWII? If you mean the various naval disarment treaties, you are dead wrong in any case. And as for the Canadians actually making a contribution in WWII, they did. But what turned the tide of the war (if not intially) but our entry? Who cares if the Soviets took the majority of the casualties? You forget those bastards were originally allied with Hitler! If they had such a great concern for the rest of Europe, why in the hell did they do that? And on the communism in Europe issue, how can you even THINK about us just letting Europe go communist? We would've been isolated and eventually overwhelmed. Lenin and Stalin both spoke of how their goal was turn the entire world into a Communist hell on Earth. The Communist bloc would've outnumbered us in every measure and only our nukes would've saved us from sure invasion. The Bering Strait is only 30 miles across. So what if it was for our interests if it happened to serve theirs as well? And on the Kaiser.....we hastened his defeat. Europe would not have been under his heel, but the fighting would've gone on and on forever. The unrestricted submarine warfare would've brought Britain to her knees without our intervention and France and the rest of the Allies would've have eventually been drawn into a war of attrition that they'd lose.
How is calling Canada, a country with all these entitlements, a socialist nanny state an insult? And how is suggesting that some Alabaman's like to play the banjo and insult? You trip yourself up at every step BS. I didn’t even bother to read past this because it’s pretty clear that you’re just a one note blaring horn with no ability to listen.
Because you are associating Alabama with a movie (Deliverance) that featured a banjo playing inbred boy and I find that demeaning. One note blaring horn? I have listened to you and I've found your tune to be sour to my ears. It's not like you're playing anything else but the woe is me, the U.S. is the source of evil in the modern world and we Canadians are glad we are not part of our evil neighbor to the south. I know you have a chip on your shoulder toward the southern neighbor who protects you, but how can I help that? You have yet to disprove any of my points and yes....I've been to Canada many times. It is a very clean and nice country, but when I found out what the taxes were like, I winced. If your country wants to be more and more socialist, be my guest. But don't criticize us for not following that route.
1) What is the factual defintion of a 'nanny' state? Why does the fact that some Americans feel that Canada's health system is viable mean that Canadians should tolerate, let alone embrace, the defintion of them as socialist? Canada is socialist in the same way that Asia is the Orient...if you assume that you are the center. By global standards Canada is much nearer the middle than the US. 2) "balkanized hellohole"? Ummm...you do realize that there are other options aside from homogenized melting pots and balknaized hellholes, right? Seriously, you are incredibly geo-centric in your thinking. 3) Those surveys are made to reflect what the majority of the population of the planet want out of a place they live. I could not have come up with a better example of the self-centred we're better becasue we are attitude then your response to this had I tried...So they're all just jealous...so jealous, in fact, that they'lll lie about what they want to scew the findings of a poll? Or else...maybe...just maybe...most of the world has slightly different priorities. Of course that skews the whole jealousy thing, but whattya gonna do? Look, if your priority is money, the US is probably the place to be, in terms of possible options. And there are people in many nations who look at things that way. But to assume that that is the majority is to dismiss the findings of almost every cultural study done, and to invalidate the rationale for these 'best place to live' surveys. Many, mnay others find money to be of importance, but not worth the cost in terms of crime, pollution, etc. that the US offers. You can say you disagree with these studies, clearly you do. But to suggest that they are flawed because they reflect priorities other than yours, while at the same time saying that the reason people hate us is that we have what they want are contradictory positions, both of them wrong, but in any case not possible for both to be true. 4) The first to put civil liberties in law? Are you serious? First since when? Since Rome? Since Greece? Overlooking the ramifications of the Magna Carta? And even if by some narrow selective definition we were first, what the hell does that prove? We're talking about now...best place to live now. I love history, but in this respect it is irrelevent, but hell I'll give it a go. All kinds of nations have equivalents to the Bill of Rights...hell, in Iceland they all vote on everything, and as such civil rights are a matter of popular decision on the spot. Canada has an equally enforced but more liberal equivalent. There are countless examples. I agree that the US served as the model for the resurgence of popular government in the late 18th century...but years of slavery, segregation, restriction of the rights of women, lobbyist influence, and political corruption has sort of taken the shine off of the apple in terms of being the model of civil liberties. Remeber the Underground Railroad? Two questions...where were they trying to leave, and where were they trying to get to? 5) I agree that a certain amount of wanting to knock off the guy on top is endemic. But A) It has rarely been true in recent centuries on a global scale as much as it is now about the US. Great Britain, for example, while resented ( rightfully) within the realms they occupied, was generally seen as pretty benevolent outside their realm. Not necessarily accuratley, but we're talking about the 'automatic' jealousy you are discussing. and B) It has never been as true of us as now...if it's natural, then why is it now suddenly on a huge increase? Especially following a huge surge of support following 9-11? Do you think that maybe, just maybe it's at our own feet? 6) Treaties of mutual protection with both Great Britain and France signed surrounding the League of Nations. Read Rooosevelt's secretary's memoires if you want insight into our abadndonment of them. 7) Who cares if the Soviets suffered the most caualties? Uh..ok, possibly no one but the Soviets, but I'll be damned sure that we're all pretty gratefull that they inflicted a corresponding portion on the Germans, or else we never set foot on Europe again. The vast majority of the German divisions were concentrated against the USSR..including almost all of their elite Panzer units...and if the USSR wasn't taking and giving the bulk of the casualties, as well as reclaiming most of the occupied territory...we don't win the war. As far as truning the war, Stalingrad was that event, according to both the Germans and most neutral sources. D-Day opened a second front...but without the destruction of the german war machine's best troops, and the subsequent redeployment of divisions to the east to compensate, D-Day doesn't happen. American entry into the war was significant as it turns out, but not as significant as Hitler's decision to invade Russia. As far as why the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, if you know anything obaout history, you know that that was Stalin's last gasp effort at protecting the USSR from the Nazis, and occured only after the Western allies repeatedly ignored his overtures to ally against Germany, and in fact themselves signed agreements witht he Nazis, sacrificing the Czecks, without even inviting the USSR to the table. The intent was, open and obvious; to turn the Nazis against the Soviets. Stalin signed a treaty with Germany only after having been forced into it by Britain and France, who saw him as the greater enemy, and ignored his warnings about Hitler. If you are going to argue history, know it. 8) I didn't argue that 'letting' Europe go Communist wouldn't have been to our disadvantage. Just pointed out that we acted in our best interests, not theirs, ans you so admirablly outlined. 9) Your interpretation of the effect of US entry into WWI surpasses virtually every authority I have ever read on the subject. Usually it varies between a positive moral boost, as Churchill claimed, to having little or no effect aside from commercial, which preceded our entry. To suggest that without the US the war becomes an exhaustive stalemate is to overlook the assessment of alsmot all the authorities involved at the time. Do you realize how second class our military was to the European powers at the time, in terms of training, experience, organization, etc.? The Central Powers said afterwards that our entry had little or nothing to do with their ultimate surrender...they exhausted themselves with an ill-fated offensive against ( almost entirely, aside from one significant battle in the Ardennes) European, Canadian, and Australian troops, and simply lacked the strategic initiavie or willpower to go on. I don't know where you get your facts, but they're off.
Because you are associating Alabama with a movie (Deliverance) that featured a banjo playing inbred boy and I find that demeaning. And are you saying that your comment about Canada being a "socialsit nanny state" is not demeaning? Keep in mind that Canada has never been ruled by a socialsit party. One note blaring horn? I have listened to you and I've found your tune to be sour to my ears. It's not like you're playing anything else but the woe is me, the U.S. is the source of evil in the modern world and we Canadians are glad we are not part of our evil neighbor to the south. Please show me where I have made these comments. You wouldn’t be making this up, would you? I know you have a chip on your shoulder toward the southern neighbor who protects you, but how can I help that? Again, evidence please. I won’t respond to fabricated criticisms. You have yet to disprove any of my points... I asked you to explain what you mean by "socialist utopia." Once I know what you're trying to say I'll respond.
Macbeth..... I don't know what history you've read, but when we did not ratify the League of Nations pact, thus all of the associated treaties did not have the force of law. Even though Wilson signed them, they were null and void. I don't dispute that Hitler's move against the USSR largely lost the war for him, but the alternative of a totally Communist Europe had we not intervened is too horrible to imagine. As for the USSR trying to ally with the West against the Nazis, I don't buy it for a minute. They looked at France and the U.K. with the same amount of disgust as the Nazis and from what I've read in a couple of Stalin biopics, he wanted to stay out of the war at all costs. We are the first nation to be founded entirely based on these ideals. The other situations you spoke of (U.K. with the Magna Carta, ancient Greece and Rome, etc.) eventually went down the path of liberalized civil liberties after starting out as dictatorships. Second, why are you bringing slavery into an argument about our civil liberties? We did it, it was wrong.....move on. And as for women's suffrage, do you think that the rest of the world was anymore backward than us in that regard? We are not perfect, but who is? I'd much rather be here, with the protection of the 1st Amendment, than say in Britain, where there is no such protection. I just don't see America as this crime-infested, polluted hellhole you make it out to be as compared with the rest of world. In fact, we are nowhere near as bad as we once were. In Cleveland, the Cuyahoga River once literally caught on fire. Now, you can catch fish out of the river and consume them without deletrious effects. About World War I, our land forces were crap except the Marines (Belleau Wood, semper fi!) but our naval forces were top-notch. Without our escort ships and our battlefleet that gave the Allies insurmountable numbers on the seas, the U.K. would've been starved into submission. I think a lot of this hatred and jealousy I speak of towards America has only really gotten ink now that a Republican president in the White House. You never saw the media make such a big deal about it during the Clinton years and as someone who served in the Marines, I know that we were just as hated now as before. I really don't care what the world thinks about us and I'm of the belief that we should do automatically what is our vital national interest, rather than worrying about winning some global popularity contest.
Bama... You really are arguing against yourself here. First you make an insulting comment about Canada, and then get all offended when a Canadian responds in kind, tongue in cheek, mind. Then you say that your comment wasn't an insult because you consider it to be true, despite all evidence to the contrary. Put it this way...if you say that Canada is socialist merely because it is closer to the left than the US, and the extreme left is socialist...if that, to you, is a viable argument, then you are therefore saying that you should take no offense if a Canadian called the US a fascist thug state. The US is farther to the right than Canada, and the extreme right is fascism, so....see what I mean? Also you argue against yourself vis a vis being the best. First you state that the US is the best in all things. Then when it is pointed out that military might and economic power are not all things, you respond by saying that other things don't count because they're not American/your priorities...so you are effectively arguing that the US is the best at being the US, which I will concede. But if you are equating military and economic might as therefore being the best country, that's selective, and I'll address it further in a sec. Your third contradiction is the jealousy thing: You at one point say that opposition to America stems from a natural and automatic resentment of those who want what we have. But when dealing with the surveys you contend that they are out of whack because they don't reflect what our priorities are, but rather the priorities of others who want other things...which is it, AS? Do they want what we have or not? But finally, I I have no expectation that this observation will change your view on anyhting, but it might be food for thought: Your two basic premises are that the US is the 'best' nation because we are the most powerful in terms of military and economy, correct? I am trying to be accurate here. So if we are the best for that reason, it follows that the best nation has always been the top nation in terms of military and economic might, right? I mean, either it's a correlation or it isn't... And your second premise is that opposition to the US is not a reflection of our actions, but a natural consequence of being the top military and economic power which effects an endemic sense of envy and resentment in lesser nations, correct? Ok...if those are what you are saying, and I think that any reading of your posts could not fail to arrive at that conclusion, I have to questions for you. 1) Do you know which nation was the top military and economic nation in Europe in, say, 1938, and according to your definition, therefore the 'best' nation in Europe at the time? 2) Did opposition to that nation stem not from it's actions, but merely from the natural jealousy and resentment of the lesser nations of the time? PEACE JAG
1) The treaties were concurrent with the LON, but not part of them They were in effect, and we turned our backs on them. 2) Your horror at the prosepect of a Communist Europe is irrelevent to the discussion of whether or not we saved Europe from the Nazis and are thus owed some sort of status. 3) As to your not buying Stalin's attempts to ally with the West pre-Warsaw Pact, sorry, you are dead wrong. It's on record, from as many sources as you can name...the rejection went the other way. So my point is not dismissed merely because you refuse to accept it. I can refuse to accept that Germany lost WWII, but that wouldn't make it any more true. You could, as they say, look it up. Yeah he wanted to say out of the war, that was the point...he felt that Germany would be frozen if facing an allied front surrounding them. 4) We are the first nation founded on those ideals? My you are selective...But no, we're not, even according to your definition. Greece, Rome etc. stated out as dictatrships geographically...so did we. Hell, we actually started out as a combination of native tribal political systems. But we consider our nation to have begun with the formation of our current politcal suystem, just like the Romans considered their state to have begun with the inception of the Roman Republic, or the Athenians considered their state to thave begun with the inception of the demes based political system, or the Spartans considdred themselves to have begun with their constitution, etc. You can't say it applies to us but not to others, either geography is the root, in which case we were many things before we were a democracy, or the root is the origin of the state in question, in which case others preceded us by millenia, which again pokes a hole in another of your red white and blue absolute illusions. 5) Are you actually asking me how slavery relates to civil liberties? 6) I have not made out the US as crime-infested polluted hellhole...I merely pointed out that in those, as in other areas, the US is well behind several nations. The US has one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world, especially as it relates to violent crimes. The US has a much higher pollution rate and much lower standards of environmental controls than many nations. This is not me saying this, these are merely the numbers in question. The Mistake by the Lake cleaning up it's act has nothing whatever to do with the numbers relative to other nations, which was the initial point. 7) The UK would have been starved into submission?....You are honestly saying that, in WWI, it was our navy that saved THE ROYAL NAVY!?!?!? 8) It isn't about glboal popularity contests, it's about global accountability. Do you think that every nation should ignore the sentiments of the world and just do what it wants? Do you realize what that brought us in the past? We were supposed to have progressed a tad since that kind of jingoistic attitude. And I doubt that the rest of the wordl cares whether our President is Republican or Democrat, and the reason you didn't hear as much about Clinton as now is the same reason you didn't hear as much about Bush Sr. as now...they didn't screw up like this.
Two points......One, how did Bush screw up? He rejected a treaty (Kyoto) that was badly flawed and would have done severe damage to our economy, all to stop a problem that is not caused by man (global warming). He withdrew us from the outdated ABM treaty negotiated with a country (USSR) that no longer exists and thus was null and void anyhow. He went to war with Iraq to remove WMD from a dictator that despite our best efforts, continued to develop them. The world wouldn't support us on that because of economic reasons (the Russian and French are owed money and have lucrative contracts with the Iraqi govt.) so we had to "go it alone" with a coalition of the willing. I don't always agree with Bush, but I'm glad he stood up for what he thought was correct and told the international community that you're either with us or against us. There is no neutral. Even though the rebuilding of Iraq will be difficult, the rewards will be worth it. And on this "global sentiment" thing, I'm glad we are deciding to be our own, sovereign nation without other countries telling us what we can and can't do. We are an independent, sovereign nation and it is about time we do what we need to do in our own best interests. Sometimes you have to be selfish and this is one of those times.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is humblely say "Thank you" and the easiest thing to do is develop insecurities.
If they’re French, yes. If they are English they usually go by African Canadian. http://www.yorku.ca/aconline/culture.html
Where do you get this stuff? Seriously. 1) Global warming is not caused by man...this just in. I have heard that the matter has yet to be entirely proven, but you are the first I have heard contend that it is factual that it isn't. What is your information, and why have you delayed in sharing this with the world? 2) You are actually supporting pulling out of the IBM treaty? That's alomst a first. So in your mind the semantics excuse the ramifications...at a time when we are invading or considering invading other nations for merely seeking to posses nukes, you feel that it was cool to pull out of a treaty we had agreed to in with the purpose of reducing the nuclear threat to the planet because you feel that theere was a loophole that allowed an out? Are you serious? Why exactly would we be looking for an out? 3) WMD...more evidence that you are apparently hiding from thr world. Please share. 4) "The world wouldn't support us on that because of economic reasons (the Russian and French are owed money and have lucrative contracts with the Iraqi govt.) so we had to "go it alone" with a coalition of the willing. " Lol. Tjis I had to quote verbatim, partly cause it's so full of holes it oughta be on rye with pastrami, partly because it is so textbook " I will repeat whatever I have been told without censure of any kind." rhetoric, it makes it pretty apparent that you have little interest in seeking the truth. Here are the problems with this statement: A) It assumes that two nations in question acted out of the the interests of a few companies therein, but the same standard of assumption, were it applied to the US, would be met with scorn. B) It doesn't not account for the fact that the governments of these two nations acted in response to the overwhelming will of their people...as governemnts are supposed to. C) It doesn't explain why most of the rest of the world opposed the US in this. Did the Russian contracts make Canada beg out? Did China respond to the will of the French conglomerate too?How on earht can you dismiss the opposition of the peoples of both nations, and of the majority of the planet based on a hypothetical conflict of interest with regards to corporate motivation? 5) " I don't always agree with Bush, but I'm glad he stood up for what he thought was correct and told the international community that you're either with us or against us. There is no neutral. " Ummm..where do we get off telling the rest of the world that we will decide their political positions for them? You actually support playing political brinkmanship with the rest of the world? 6) "And on this "global sentiment" thing, I'm glad we are deciding to be our own, sovereign nation without other countries telling us what we can and can't do. We are an independent, sovereign nation and it is about time we do what we need to do in our own best interests. Sometimes you have to be selfish and this is one of those times. " So it was okay for us to tell nation after nation that they had to subliminate their interests when they conflicted with global priorities like peace, non-aggression, etc...but when we feel like doing it, it's about time? We have been the greatest user of the UN veto...we have been the ones to tell others what they can and can't do, on behalf of global sentiment. When have we ever been held back oursleves? Can you cite an example? You act like we've been suffering the whip and lash of the global community for so long that it's a relief we finally broke free, but you are overlooking the fact that we were the one holding the whip. This is the first time the global community opposed us like this...and we did what we wanted anyway. Where do you get about time? We have meddled in the affairs of other nations for 50 years, we helped overthrow popular leaders, set up and supported murderous tyrants, spread misiniformation, rigged elections, assassinated leaders, and all in pursuit of our own intersts...when exactly weren't we selfish, bama?
On the ABM treaty, mutually assured destruction is a thing of the past. Just because we decide to DEFEND ourselves against incoming nukes doesn't make us a pariah, it just makes us smart to do so. And on the Iraq issue, whats done is done. Even Bill Clinton spoke about a threat from Iraqi WMD and he is no hawk for sure. He lays out the same case against Hussein, but when Bush does it....it's evil, wrong, unilateral, blah, blah, blah..... By the rationale you put forward, you want the peoples of France and Russia to determine our foreign policy by having a final checkoff on anything we do.....right? Sure, that is ridiculous in the extreme. We are not telling the world their political positions, instead, we are merely saying, either get on board and root out the terrorists or find yourself on the wrong end of a gun. It's about time we finally quit being such wussies with our enemies in the world and acted like we are the world's most powerful nation. And on our selfish pursuit of our motives, what were we supposed to do? I don't have a problem with overthrowing govts, assassination and other fun stuff the CIA used to get to do. And besides, if we hadn't done any of those things would the world still love us? Nah.....try again.
Well, that pretty much sums up what I thought your position would be, although extreme, and points out the lack of any merit in debating this with you. I suspected that the underlying motivation behind your posts was that everything we do is right, and anyone who opposes us is wrong, and this pretty much proves that, although I credit you with being a lot more overt than I would have expected.
That about covers it. Maybe I should've just come out and said it sans explanation. At least I'm honest about my viewpoints. I'm not going to call you unpatriotic because I thought many on the Right got a little out of control with that. But what is your allegiance? To your country or to the enemies of your country? I don't have a problem with people questioning why we go to war or whether or not vital interests are sufficient to rally forth both blood and treasure, but are you going to still continue to question our motives even after the war has begun? We are not always right, but I'm glad it is us and not the PRC or Russia that is the hegemonic power in our world.
With all due respect, you have shown yourself to be completely out of your depth in this conversation. Time after time your premises in this thread about Canada, US history, hell, reality, itself have been systematically demolished. All you have left to do in this conversation is wrap yourself in that flag like a mummy one final time and hope that future generations will find you and figure out what museum to put you in. I am not entirely serious with that last crack, but, do you think being "the hegemonic power in our world" is consistent with American values? Really?
