Jump to content

Slavik44

Member
  • Posts

    1,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Slavik44

  1. I think MADD is mothers agaisnt Drunk driving MAd ont he outhr hand is mutually assured destruciton anywayz...why exactly was this even posted?
  2. well i can't see why we should be fealing down with 25%, after all the talk of 20% and 17% and how support was slipping these polls have bounced around so much, who knows. I mean the liberals are at 55% well is there not a post just down the page with the liberals at 57.5 % and did it not have the NDP at 17.5%, and now only 13% of the people say they will vote for the NDP and now only 55% of peopel say they willv ote for the liberals...so either the Bloc just doubled the amount of peopel who will vote for them or the CPC is starting to make some gains.
  3. Just like the bloody cowards defended Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania back in the thirties. The Germans used to ridicule the French by saying the way tob defeat the French was to roll out a few kegs of wine and some dancing girls.... Their Maginot line, supposedly the most formidable line of defense ever built by a country was penetrated and the cowardly nation went down to defeat faster than Poland who at least fought a damn courageous fight against the Nazis, sending hussars out on horseback out against panzers. it wouild have been too easy for the Poles to surrender and cut a Vichy style deal with the Nazis, like the cowardly French swine, but Poland at least had, and still has a sense of honour. Liberal Canada chooses instead to emulate the French, one of the most sneering, politically correct regimes in the world. while the French did surrender and sure we can call them cowards...use a bit more factual information..... The French were cocky....there maginot line did not stretch all the way to the coast....they French just were not to bright. They didn't relaize that perhaps the Germans woudl Go around the maginot lines...and becuase everyhtign on the maginot lines could only shoot at german they were rendered useless,and int he end most of Germany's troops whent through a whole in the line where there was dense forest. If you looka t the french they are time and time agian are highly arrogant, wiht confidence in there poor tactics, but then agian hind sight is 20/20....but its only 20/20 if it is used, and in many cases the winning side fails to learns from there mistakes, while the losing side normally learns a few things.
  4. another thing we must realise is that the millitary is often called in, during natural disaster such as floods, Earth quakes and so on. I mean say an Earth quake hits B.C...the water from he ocean cuases chaos on the coast, it would be highly probable that looting would go on, there would most likely be fires...and other sorts of disturbances going on....and I Highly doubt that the RCMP and the Firemen could handle it all by themselves......but the closest Millitary base is in Alberta. Look at the wildfires that ravaged the B.C forests...having more personnel in the millitary would have given us, a more people to help fight the fires, and perhaps saved us from millions of dollars in damages. what i am trying to say is not only do we need troops for purposes mentioned by other people already; such as protecting our selves form attack, beign able to assist countries that are being attacked, help to stabilize other third world countries, as well as giving Canada the ability to assert it's self internationaly and have a real say in what goes on. There are numerous reason's for having a bigger army and perhpas it is about time we started to work our way towards getting one.
  5. listen buddy.... everytime there is a oney problem wiht America it will repeat it self in many cases over in Canada. As it goes its like a bever in bed with an elephant. All i was doing is anylizing the whole situation and saying that for the most part the rulign make's sense. It was already a shady area leanign on the side of legal now downloading is. I discussed the merrits of the law, becuase i belive it should be aloud...i then explained why i think the music industry's current stance...is not workable and how they should just let people download music and work on re-gaining losses in other places. You asked what i thought about it, and i told you...if you see the word America and get pissed off it is not my problem. Next, whenevert here is an article dealing with the music industry it is about every country in the world where a computer and a net connection is easily accessable. Aswell read the sub topics in the article.... Canada deems P2P downloading legal But uploads aren’t; fees tacked on price of MP3 players *i did talk about tacking fees on tot hings to regain lost money. why? becuase iw as also discussign the article you posted, there is more to it then "Canada deems P2P downloading legal" and then we discuss it...i was disscussign the whoel article. Recording industry unhappy *I also touched on the recording industry, why i disagree with there stance,a nd what i felt they shoudl do. Issue not resolved *i belive maybe i didn't do it atiquatley but that i feal that they are alternate ways to resolve it liek mentioned in a few of my points. In the end you asked what we thought about the article.... I was sent this article by a friend and was wondering what you guys thought of it. As i said i told you what i thought about it. even you said we are on our way to ticking off the Yanks again. what i mean i am trying to say is that whenever you discuss the music industry's problems they center around America, They majority of 50 cent CD's were bought in AMerica, the Majority of linkin park CD's were bought in AMerica...and so on...so if the music industry is losign money they are losign most of it in America...and i was discussing the problem on the whole. If you want to sit back and diss some yanks, even though not all of Americans are yanks, and discuss further steps that can be taken to piss America off i am all for it lets make Chretien the Canadian ambassador to the U.S.
  6. 1) uploading is still illegal but i doubt that will stop anyone. anywayz...there best bet is to go with the fee on the MP'3 player....it alows them to re-gain some lost money, with out having to go through the court rooms..where in all honesty due to this being an international occurence they will have trouble grabing people out side the U.S. They also wouldn't ahve the resources to take every single file sharer to court.....look at some of those file sharers easily one million people on at any given time. It would be tough to take out even 10% of them, but that is not a big enough dinge to stop it or scare off more people. This especially considerign the fact it would be a waste of tiem to go after soemoen with less then 500 files...and honestly I would say (not scientific or anyhting) 98% of people have less then 500 mp3's shared, look at who they have gone after peopelw ho shared 2,000 + files....they tried to take out the big guys and scare some small guys away...but they can't scare every one away or sue every one away, and becuase Kazaa is decentralized they can't shut it down like they did napster. what they shoudl be doing now is.... 1. lower prices on their CD's 2. Continue with the fee on MP3 players 3. put a fee of 2 cents per CD-R, bought 4. Allow singers to take a larger cut from CD's..in re-turn the ocmpany gets a cut on the singers tour 5. perhaps expirementally try a pay per month download system, where songs can only be burnt to CD 10 times. 6. Stop riding the wave of pop music, the little 13 year olds don't listen to it, and the 13 year olds that did are now 18, and don't listen to it...try getting back into touch with there customers and there customers interests. 7. The U.S economy is on a down turn, when soemthign is on a down turn...it could indicate people have lower expendable income, and so less money is spent on CD's...perhaps the music industry should also work on waiting that out as well.
  7. Yes greg just finished a mid term on how 60% of Canadians are going to vote for the CPC.
  8. It's because of the natural law silly! so wha ti like look on a tree to find out there policies or something?
  9. the natural law party doesn't even have a web site any more pfftt... oh yeah...i voted conservatives.
  10. well when the CIA and the U.S president says that the CIA helped organize the bay of pigs i am inclined to belive them, when my history teacher as wella s books say that somoza and the U.S were buddies and worked to gether with each other i am inclined to belive them. The CIA's involvement int he chilian coup is fiarly well documented as well. Now you can say all of this was neccasary and we could debate that for hours and get no where, however to say it isn't a historical fact is a very big stretch to the truth. As for Canada's role in the international market, i have never supported are how canada Plays that game read my posts no arguement here. The Canadian millitary is a Joke our foriegn policy is a joke, our sit on our rear end's and do nothing policy is a joke, the canadian government is a joke. That beign said its is our governments main job to make life better for canadians first and foremost. I fail to see how sucking up to America and takign a roel lower then the presidents dog makes Canada a better country on the National and international field. America is not God, they are capable of evil, they are capable of doing worng...and they have, and you should not treat them as God as if the can do no wrong...that is historical inacurate and that is highly biased. Every country has done wrong, including America you sugar coat America so much it is repulsive. I am all for Good U.S Canadian relations, but i am not interested in comprimising Canadian soveriegnty any mro then it already is, i am not interested in for giong Canada's will, to please America. I am however for the idea of picking up our share of the defense of North America, I am all for working together closer with America on certian policy. However unlike you i belive Canada is a country and as a country has a right to govern it's own self, it has a right to disagree with other coutnries be it France or be it America we have every right to do so, just like your beloved America has the same right. If we are to have a relationship witht he U.S it MUST i will say it agin MUST be equal we must share the duties, we must share the re-wards and we also most co-operate...not have Caanda be America's slave...that is not a relationship that is ownership...if you deem relationship's to be 1 person continual submitting themselves to another...having there free will, there opinions and there own interests removed fromt hem and deemed un important...then there is definentley some problems.
  11. i would agree with you man i can't see the liberals keeping 2 seats in Alberta..they were close enough when the vote was split, i can see alberta getting a full slate of conservative MP's, and i don't need a poll or survey to predict that
  12. If you don't mind me asking is there a reason it is in French? anywayz...what i get from the article is that not enough is being done on two of the biggest economic themes, which are productivity, and civil restructuring. but in quebec the unions and average people have put pressure on charset, to gurantee investments in Education, and in Ontario we have howdy doody. Then it says that this alone is evidence for the major resturctioring that happend after NAFTA, and is the reason for the decline of Canada's quality of life. As wella s comenting on the fact that Caanda's productivity per person has not grown as fast as it has in Australia or America. Then it says that restructuring is needed to increase Canada's productivity, but are we able to find someone to do that in Canada? Craig maybe next time you post in french you could also provide a translation, becuase I took French in Grade 11 and never wanted to use it again...perhaps you could explain what the article meant cause i am sorta struggling to understand it, help me out man
  13. well lets see... east of quebec...maybe 10 seats Quebec maybe 2 seats Ontario lets say 10 seats manitoba maybe 4 seats Saskatchewan maybe 7 seats Alberta Maybe 26 seats (yes a total wash out) B.C 20 Seats Territories 0 seats -------------------------------------- so that would be about 79 seats, i say its realistic enough
  14. honstly we have two options, just shut the Army down now or watch it go down in 10 years. You cannot support a strong Army, unless it is built upoun a strong foundation, the liberals are not that foundation. Even if we increase millitary spending money by 5 billion where does it come from? Our Failing health care system? Our Failing Education system? or just the failing system? Maybe we can increase taxes...to save our army? We can just tax the rich, then when the rich leave to the U.S, we can tax the middle class then when the middle class collapses we can just tax the poor, oh yeah they are so poor they can't afford to be taxed. Let's just stop the pain, and speed up the death, vote Communist party of Canada.
  15. unless i am misunderstandng some one, i think you are mixing things up here SirRiff, pedophile: An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children If a 16 year old has sex with a 16 year old, which one is the pedophile here? so there is definentley a difference between 16-16 and 32-16 So yes while there is teens have sex with teens, Adults having sex with little kids is slightly different.
  16. sorry SirRiff but i got a few problems 1. Outdated views -If the views are still around they are not outdated. What you mean by outdated, is a wonderfull form of propaganda of a basterdized word. This new word is used now not to describe the views themselves but to immediatley imprint an idea in someones head of evil stupidity. Next what are we replacing these outdated views with? Curbing freedom of speech, of certian religous groups? Turning right around and not excepting people who hold these views as members of this modern society? Treating the people who commited these evil deeds, with evil in return? Treating some one's old views that we pertain to be intolerant as intolerant and then not tolerating this person in return? To take 1 person who says this evil and blame a whole group of people, who may or may not be "guilty", and in a sence casting judgement with out knowledge, over riding the system of you are innocent until proven guilty? Deciding that Certian groups offended these new accepted groups and treat them with hatred and intolerence back? That is just a few problem's with these new views! These new views are not new at all, infact they are old views. That is all your new views are SirRiff, and old policies with a new leader so to speak. The same hatred, racism, and oppression you seak to eliminate, you employ on millions more people, all it is is a different group being oppressed and a different group doing the oppressing how is that something new. Your views are just as outdated as spencers, they just involve hating a new group of people...making them the new "acceptable" norm. So for that these New views have already failed at achieving there goals before they have even begun.
  17. hey, let the guy say what he want's may not be great for his poliitical career...but he is old enough as it is... I dont see anyhting wrong with his commits, I mean Svend robinson who had some harsh words about the statements made by Larry Spencer, is the same person who tried to take God out of the Charter of rights and freedoms. It may slightly affect the merge vote, but it will nto be an extra 20% jumping ship tot he no side, it will just re-afrm the beliefs of orchard and his followers but just be shrugged off by the other 70% of the party, now weather or not all 70% vote yes for the merge is a different question but i can't see it being based on the comments made by Larry Spencer.
  18. Your post is senseless anti-american drivel. In an anarchic world, power and military projection is vital. Read some works by R. Gilpin, they might help you to wash away your brainwashed rah rah Canadiana. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get out more often pal, there is nothign sensless about it what is sensless is how quick you are to discard it...becuase you see a reason for it...just as i see a reason agaisnt it...everythign you read is propaganda the question is whose propaganda do you belive....honestly you went out and got a list of what the events did. you provided arguement and partial fact, and decided my opinions were senseless becuase the disagreed with yours...with out taking the tiem to consider my opinions that my friend is truly and undeniable senseless. 1898 Spanish-American War begins (April 21); US troops invade Puerto Rico (July 25) >Actually the US invaded to help the rebels in a civil war throw off Spanish oppression. Forgot to add that did you? *There were other pressures pushing towards war. The US navy had recently grown considerably, but it was still untested. The Navy had drawn up plans for attacking the Spanish in the Philippines over a year before hostilities broke out. interesting i guess you must have only read 1 person on the subject and he must have discarded the information that point's to the U.S looking for a war to fight? either that or you choose to ignore it? or hopw about an American Senators comments? -business leaders pushed for conflict as well. In the words of Senator Thurston of Nebraska: "War with Spain would increase the business and earnings of every American railroad, it would increase the output of every American factory, it would stimulate every branch of industry and domestic commerce." so they were definentley also in it for the money, but it sounds good to say fighting for freedom and democracy doesn't it? >Congress has to approve war. Forgot that did you? are you serious congress has to approve war? WOW!!! Congress has to approve war thank the lord America is democratic....just wait....no...congress represents Americian's doesn't it? yea thats right so then...what your trying to do is post some total trash that every one knows, and i never denied or argued against to make me look like an idiot in peopel's eye's to make what i say irrelivent...so which book did you get that one out of? 1903 US forces from the USS Nashville halt the advancing Colombian army at Panama; United States recognizes independence of the Republic of Panama >Yes and well they did, plus this allowed the Canal to be built. Good one. -actually what your trying to say is more like this.... When Colombia refused to sell the rights to dig the canal, Roosevelt threw U.S. power behind a Panamanian uprising and supported Panama's 1903 declaration of independence. But i am sure the book you read didn't mention this, either that or you purposley didn't mention it. 1904 US intervention in Dominican Republic to enforce debt repayments and administer customs from 1905 to 1907 >Yes no kidding and so what. 1906 US intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1909 >And your point is ? The US won the war rebuilt the gov't and then left. 1912 Renewed intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1917 >This is the same as the point above. okay sure, so what...well again American Buisness, was heavily involved in Cuba the intervention was to protect this all i am saying is it is not so mucht he people as it is the benjamin's. 1912 US Marines invade Nicaragua on conservative side of civil war; remaining until 1933 >At the behest of Nicaraguans you should add and the force was tiny. So what is the point ? Point? well was on the conservative side...now this isn't a communism conservatism thing...but they entered to help the conservative side to....again protect American Buisness and American interets...which the conservative side would do AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR OWN POPULATION'S WELL BEING. 1914 Tampico incident in Mexico leads to landing of US forces; Veracruz, Mexico bombarded; war averted by mediation of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile >Pancho Villa and Mexican raiders abetted by German money were stealing property and killing US citizens. So what is your point here ? The US retaliated when the Mexcian gov't did nothing. *the books you read missed a few more things and overstated others...to bad, you almost had a good point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In short the Mexican regime under General Huerta harassed U.S. sailors stationed off Mexican waters in early 1914. The nature of the discourtesy - the arrested sailors were paraded through the streets of Tampico - was such that Admiral Henry Mayo, commander of U.S. naval forces in the region, declined an initial Mexican apology for a verbal apology. Instead Mayo demanded that the person or persons responsible for the incident be punished and that the U.S. flag be given a 21-gun salute on shore. The Mexicans responded with a written apology and General Huerta similarly expressed his regret - but crucially the U.S. demand for a flag salute on Mexican soil was denied. Thus on 20 April 1914 President Woodrow Wilson went to Congress and requested authorisation to use military force to produce the required form of Mexican contrition. Wilson was concerned that Tampico merely comprised the latest in a series of such incidents. Two days later Congress granted Wilson the authority he sought. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- so then it was an invasion to make mexico salute the American Flag, yes it was well worth it. 1915 Military occupation of Haiti begins; treaty efectively makes Haiti a US protectorate; troops stay until 1934 1916 US Marines intervene in Dominican Republic, lasting until 1924 >Again both instances in accord with wishes of both countries trying to fight insurgency. So what is your point ? yes however, they were there oninvatation becuase it would keep the government in power, and allow the government to continue to supress the people of the ocuntry and ignore there needs. They may have been invited but the population didn't want them. 1919 US Marines occupy Honduran ports >To protect US shipping well said, so its okay to invade a country hurt the population to protect buisness. 1924 US Marines land in Honduras >After being asked by the gov't. again if you were going to being attacked by rebel forces who wanted your head wouldn't you want to save your rear end? the questionis why did they want there head? oppression of the people in the Honduras by the government to protect American interests. 1926 US Marines organize Nicaraguan National Guard; the Somoza dynasty (1936 to 1979) uses Nicaraguan National Guard as guarantor of their political control >Actually the Somoza dynasty so called was never organised by the US. The Nicaraguans organised this themselves quite nicely. Really so the money he was given from the U.S was from the monopoly bored game right? The American troops trianed there to attack other countries in latin America were men for the bored game risk? in fact when FDR said this about Somoza “He may be a Son of a Bitch, but he’s our Son of a Bitch!” what was that, i cant think of the bored game that came from maybe it was reality like the other two. 1932 US Navy on standby during the natanza (suppression of a peasant rebellion) in El Salvador >well its interesting when the U.S attacked the spanish it was to stop oppression, however, they wont stop oppression here infact they were actually prepared to help the oppressors. 1954 Guatemalan President Jacobo Ärbenz ousted by CIA-inspired coup >Not true, ousted by his own military. Good try though. actually the attempt was by the CIA and the guy in no way connected with the U.S FDR's buddy somoza, they supported a general named Carlos Castillo Armas. Of course after he came to power, 100,000 peopel were rounded up and killed. By the way it is actually considered Fact that the U.S sponsered the coup. There are books written about the coup...and the fact that it was sponsered by the U.S which is exactly what i said... now notice how i said the CIA inspired the coup, and the U.S supported the coup, i am not denying the fact is was carried out by the millitary but they are just the tool. does the hammer make the shed, or the worker...i belive the worker makes the shed, unforutnantley you seem to belvie the hammer makes the shed, i belvie the hammer is nothing with out the worker. 1965 US Marines sent to Dominican Republic to prevent a left-wing takeover during the Dominican civil war >Funded by Cubans and Soviets, what do you want them to do ? The Johnson Administration's unilateral decision to invade the Dominican Republic was based on erroneous information and the President's own concerns over the possibility of "another Cuba" in the hemisphere and the residual effect that it would have on U.S. efforts in Vietnam. 1973 CIA helps orchestrate and fund military coup of President Salvador Allende in Chile >Total nonsense. Allende was taken down by his own people and military. you seem to enjoy misenterpretign what i say, I am not denying who took him down...but it comes down to the hammer and worker thing the people who took him down were the hammer and the U.S was the worker. 1981 Contra War in Nicaragua begins; United States involved legally and illegally in support of Contras >No only illegal in 1986 - read some history. Nic. was funded by cubans and soviets. What do you want them to do ? as i said involved illegaly and legaly 1989 Invasion of Panama >Restored democracy. Great invasion. yea so the question is why was noriega on the CIA's payroll in the 70's? Or how he was praised during the 80's by American political figures. Infact what happend was noriega was no longer America's boy, he had out lived his use and now it was time to get a democracy in place. 1994 Intervention in Haiti >To save the Island from starvation. Great invasion. Did it realy? or does it jsut sound nice perhaps living conditions were improved slightly...however what it did was get a person out of power the U.S didn't like in the name of the people. Sen. Patrick Leahy "The poorest country in the hemisphere remains a place where the government is barely functioning, political reform has gotten nowhere, and democracy exists only in theory. the judicial system is in disarray, the police are politicized, and the average person lives from hand to mouth." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can also add to your sad sorry list the 35 nations that are free due to US activity in WW2 and during the Cold War plus the nations that today free ride off of US security and military power. Forgot about those did you ? Your pathological irrelevant and historically inaccurate US bashing is nothing more than --- senselessness. Get some help. Hey were are having a debate here, if you want to debate lets debate i am open to hearing your opinion, however you have never met, you don't know me and you resort to continually insulting me time and time again. That is what is truly disgusting and your display of verbal abuse is what is really senseless. As far as WW2 What is it with America Versus the world? in every single war out there. Russia fought, France sorta fought , Britain faught, Canada faught the fact is the huge Bias you have in your information is historically innacuret...the evil communist's were the main reason behind victory in Europe...they actually pushed the NAZI's out of more countries then America did..and America was not the only western democratic power involved int he war as you are tryign to indicate which is historically inncacurate, SO PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.
  19. Alliance Fanatic, who is it up to to determine if people have become Canadian? Or even need to be canadianized. I think what copps said was stupid to....but then agian it's not like she came close to challanging Paul Martin. "Today Sheilla Copp's bragged about Canada's rich "multicultural" heritage. And about how great it was that 3rd, 4th, 5th, generation Canadian's are now being turned into a minority group by first generation Canadian's" See this is not a statement anyone should be making about how it is great thing that White Canadians are a minority. I have nothing wrong with Immagrints or immagraiton...but i do have a problem when someone gets up like this and uses Borderline Racism to proove a point. So now i got a problem with what you said as well, becuase i would like to know what a Canadian is? Who is to say it isn't that guy in a yellow taxi at the airport? or the person who cuts your hair that you can't understand, but for some reason they understand you? Maybe it is the guy who owns the cornerstore down the street? Or maye it is the rich guy in the porsche who just passed you? Perhaps it is Paul Martin? Stephen Harper? Maybe it is you? Maybe it is me? But perhaps being a Canadian is not as exclusive as you say? I mean I used to Deliver a newspaper, and there would be people from china with a Canadian Flag outside there house, is there one outside yours? If you play any sports...in any sort of leagues with you friends...do you immediatley suggest calling yourselves team Canada? Becuase i know people...from India, pakistan, china, and taiwan....that do. I know that if you ask these immagrints if they like Canada more then "enter country here", they almost always say Yes. Despite the fact the really don't know our language and can't get fully involved all the time. I mean my family is about 6-7 generations Canadian what makes me more Canadian then an immagrant from china? I have lived here longer? I am Smarter then them? I am nicer? or was it my ancestors who decided to come over to Canada...becuase of the freedoms it offered? Just like these immagrants we ahve are reasons for commign to Canada...and we have are path to take to get to Canada...but in the end every single one of us is Canada.
  20. Canada's Facist Side? Tony Howarth: -Italian Fascism was an ugly, violent political movement. Unfortunantley, the term 'Fasism' itself has since been used to describe a variety of political movements and forms of government in other countries, in recent times as well as in the 1920's and 1930's. The result has been that the world has become overloaded- it has been made to describe to much- and has ended up as a vague term of abuse. When we hear the slogan fascist these days it usually tells us more about the ignorance of those who shout it out then about the nature of the people, the party, or the government they are against.
  21. the only thing chretien said i agree with was in his resignation speech(for lack of better name), He said he was resigning for the Good of the country....which is so true chretien resigning is definentley the best thing to happen to canada in 10 years. Chertians real legacy is showing Canadians how little one needs to do, to go far in Canadian government that is his legacy. He barely defeated Quebec in the referendum, which sum's up his legacy perfectly; he barely did anything good.
  22. Morgan, -Afgahnistan is more then a bunch of caves, but the majority of that money is for Iraq, and as i said...show me the WOMD, and i will support it. As for standing up to coutry you automatically asume...that it means piss them off....the reason we are percieved as week is 1)our millitary 2)our government, does not stand up for ourselves...but i have already been over this... you go into a huge message about the millitary...wich i am not going to argue about...it sucks its a piece of Crap it's a dishonor to canada and canadians. You say that America is generous with Irag but they attacked Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction...don't mean to be rude...but have the rided the coutnry of WOMD or do they just not have any? They claimed time and time again that was why they were going to war, so they should pay 87 billion dollars to re-build the country...they did go to war with it. As i said 15 bill to fight aids in Africa is noble but you never answered my question how many billions do you think the U.S makes from exploiting 3rd world coutnries resources for there own use, how about American companies using Child labour from 3rd world countries? Sure 15 million to fight AIDS is a very honourable thign to do and by no means is it chump change but exploiting small countries for there resources is not noble...and id otn see bush anouncing that in any upcoming speech do you? NO! Yes other coutnries do the same and other countries give donations sure they dont equal 15 billion...but maybe there economy doesn't compare to America's so niether shold there donations. If a rich guy gives $15,000 to charity it is very honourable If his worker gives $1,500 we should respect that person just as much due to differing total incomes. Likewise the same goes with coutnries donating to Africa, what counts is that africa is getting humanitarian relief. which prooves my point, California has a GDP of over a trillion dolars, Canada is at about 980 billion is it not? So canada's donation should be less, then america's... Just like with the U.N America has a more powerfull economy, there donations should be bigger, if you look percentage of GDP being donated...America is not donating about the same as other countries. These other countries just like America...could use the money, instead they choose to give a bigger portion of there total earning to humanitarion aid. Next standing up to our two best allies? Where did i say stand up to our two best allies...i honestly think that our relationship wiht britian is about where it should be...they never pushed us to go to war...there media never dissed us becuase we didn't go to war...i hav eno problem with britian becuase britian does not expect us to be there lap dogs any more...and that is becuase we did stand up to britian at one point...and sure int he short term it created a few problems but now things are better...As for America...is it a real relationship if we are there b*tch...no it is not...that in the long term is good for america in the short term it is good for America...but it si not good for Canada to be soemone's B1tch...it is not a relationship it is nothign liek a relationship...i dunno if you ahve ever had a relationship i am going to make an assumption that you have...you notice how in a relationship...you work with each other...and sometimes your friend does somethign you dont like...you dont join them just becuase there your friend...and if they are your true friend...they will understand..so having a relationship with America requires us to express our own opinions. I didn't make the comment of the U.S beign the biggest reaper of dictators and i dotn neccasarily belive this however. The U.S does support dictators if it protects America's interests...and they will go to war over it.... ----------------------------Latin America--------------------------- 1898 Spanish-American War begins (April 21); US troops invade Puerto Rico (July 25) 1901 Platt Amendment, allowing US intervention in Cuba, adopted by US Senate 1903 US forces from the USS Nashville halt the advancing Colombian army at Panama; United States recognizes independence of the Republic of Panama 1904 US intervention in Dominican Republic to enforce debt repayments and administer customs from 1905 to 1907 1906 US intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1909 1912 Renewed intervention in Cuba, lasting until 1917 1912 US Marines invade Nicaragua on conservative side of civil war; remaining until 1933 1914 Tampico incident in Mexico leads to landing of US forces; Veracruz, Mexico bombarded; war averted by mediation of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile 1915 Military occupation of Haiti begins; treaty efectively makes Haiti a US protectorate; troops stay until 1934 1916 US Marines intervene in Dominican Republic, lasting until 1924 1917 US Marines occupy Cuba, lasting until 1923 1919 US Marines occupy Honduran ports 1924 US Marines land in Honduras 1926 US Marines organize Nicaraguan National Guard; the Somoza dynasty (1936 to 1979) uses Nicaraguan National Guard as guarantor of their political control 1932 US Navy on standby during the natanza (suppression of a peasant rebellion) in El Salvador 1954 Guatemalan President Jacobo Ärbenz ousted by CIA-inspired coup 1962 Cuban missile crisis 1965 US Marines sent to Dominican Republic to prevent a left-wing takeover during the Dominican civil war 1973 CIA helps orchestrate and fund military coup of President Salvador Allende in Chile 1981 Contra War in Nicaragua begins; United States involved legally and illegally in support of Contras 1983 Invasion of Granada 1989 Invasion of Panama 1994 Intervention in Haiti ----------------------------Point Made------------------------------- All in all you say chretian has weakend the millitary, which i agree with...yous ay our millitary failures go hand in hand wiht canada not beign able to stick up for it's self ont he international stage. You endorse other coutnries for stickign up for themselves. It seems to me you ahve a double standard.....which happens to be Canada should stick up for its self, but if it is America we shold run grab a leash and collar put it on our necks and give the leash to America. That is wrong, yes we should be freindly but we should not disrespect our own country like this.
  23. Most recent world war? well technically how do you coem to that conclusion? Is it a historical fact? Or just soem propaganda that you feal makes sense to most people? For it to be a historical fact you would really have to proove hitler's intentions to take over the world, as far as most know his original attentions were Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, it wasn't until he invaded poland that britian, france, and allies declared war. That is when hitler destroyed Western Europe...he did say he wasn't interested in France it was full of French, but okay lets not give him the benifiet of the doubt after all it is hitler. Next we would have to proove his ability to make it to lets say Canada, could he make it? NO!!!! Why? Britain, Germany didn't have the Navy....to take on the British...so they would first have to be able to take on britians navy then transport troops over to fight in Canada.We are not talking an invasion of normandy from Britain we are talking an invasion of Canada From France. At that tiem canada had one of the top 5 Air forces in the world...one of the top 5 navy's in the world. Next Germany Would be way to spread out...think about it...if Canadians knew Germany was sending troops to invade...dont you think an awfull lot of people would pick up a gun to fight? Then to do that they owuld have to send troops to canada obviously..if they sent troops they leave Europe defenseless...they leave there heart undefended, bam KO, Allies win. So in all honesty, what you said is not true, about the world speaking German, and beign under fascist control, its what I would call lies, propaganda. Next 87 billion for RE-consturction of Afgahnistan and Iraq....yes how honourable of them....who invaded iraq again? and where are there WOMD? $15 billion to fight aids in Africa is a noble cause no arguement here...but agian how about the exploitation of resources in third world countries, by the U.S? (I do realize other countries do the same) The U.S is the largest donnor to the U.N for humanitarion aid. Yes of course it is, why? It has the largest and most powerful Economy in the world, the State of Calafornia has a higher GDP then the country of Canada, so are we talking percentages here or actual $$$$ figures? Next...you are so pro-American you are blind to Canada, you fail to see Canada has its own needs and own values. A-M-E-R-I-C-A, C-A-N-A-D-A *i will help you out here...notice how the spelling is different? so is all other aspects, Population, Foriegn policy, Imagration policy, Environmental standards and policy, Scoial policy....they are all different. Whats wrogn with different? Nothing. Who cares if we are not America's Lap dog....If America says Jump, and we dotnw ant to we should Say NO! not how high....This is Canada not America, and what is right for America is not always right for Canada. We shoudl stick up for our country and our people. Look at syria where that man was tortured, look in Iran there is a dead Canadian journalist burried there, look at lebanon where there was another Canadian imprisoned..and has made claims of being tortured. No ogvernment (except Iraq) would do this to America now a days and that is becuase they assert themselves, and we should to, and that means asserting our interests even if it means making the U.S Angry.
×
×
  • Create New...