Black Dog

Ah.....no. There's no such thing as a "fundamentally good" society. The one who doesn't get it us you, I'm afraid. You are willing to put absolute faith in a system ("checks and balances! democracy!") while forgetting that systems and the societies they govern are easily corrupted. The U.S. is no exception.

Which really raises the question: "So?" Is "America" sacrosanct?

Just out of curiosity, doe sthat reckoning account for war time atrocities? F'r instance, democratic countries intentionally targetted foreign civilians for mass slaughter during World War 2 (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Vietnam brought us "pacification", the '80s brought us proxy wars and death squads, the 21st Century "shock and awe". All in the name of "spreading liberty for the sake of peace." How do you resolve this apparent contradiction? Is it a simple matte rof the ends justifying th emeans? Or is it worth acknowledging that "democracy" is not a miracle cure?

eureksa, some folks just don't get sarcasm unless they're smacked in the face with it. And don't even bother trying to mention the word "context".

Because it's called "debate", sunshine. As much as it would tickle your fancy to have this board be a collection of bobble-heads nodding in agreement with every trite proclimation you or anyone else makes, the whole point is to exchange ideas. So don't project your failure to have any onto those of us that do.

*cough*naturalgas*cough*

Nothing like using a sweeping generalization to cast aspirsions on those who make sweeping generalizations. Ooooh. What an original theory! You forgot to tack on soemthing about Canadians being "irrelevant". See Argus' post for tips on how to create a strawman for anti-Americanism. That's a fair interpretation. There's a lot of anti-Americanism that is simply unsophisticated and knee-jerk (f'r instance I've laways found Rick Mercer's wildly popular "Talking to Americans" to be lame for just that reason) but I don't think it's the rationale behind all anti-Americanism. But getting back to semantics I find the usage of "Americanism", rather than "American" very interesting. To me, "Americanism" is a distinctive doctrine, like pacifism, Zionism or fascism.

Depends. I've no doubt Bush's personal style and rhetoric grates on a lot of nerves (and it ain't just Canada either), but I'd like to think someone came to power as a Democrat or moderate Republican (not that they're not essentially the same thing), but continued Bush like policies of militarism and aggression abroad and gutting social programs at home, Canadians would be just as antipathic. Ah see, here we have a common mistake that Canadian conservatives make of confusing big-L Liberals with real progressives and social democrats. The Liberals may deploy rhetoric that appeals to (small-l) liberal/progressive values, but they always govern from the right. The federal Liberals are completely unprincipled. their only interest is in retaining power. Whereas the federal Conservatives are completely unprincipled and interested only in gaining power. But I digress. Anti-Americanism? And this is relevant to the discussion of anti-Americanism...how?

Bush sort of denies plan to attack Iran Well that clears that up....

Frankly, Bush isn't the problem, but the tip of the iceberg. We're not dealing with one individual that people happen to disilike, but a movement . People might not understand that and choose to lash out at the figurehead or Americans as a whole, but I think it's this sense of unease with the direction America appears to be heading in that drives the kind of sentiment you describe. Well, I think it's a mistake to equate university attendance with critical thinking capacity or indeed an intelligent mind.

For someone bemoaning a "lack of critical thinking, an absence of the scientific method", you're sure sloppy. For starters, you seem to accept some self-evident definition for anti-Americanism. No such thing exists. You fail to address the issue of how words are defined by popular usage (note the two examples I cited earlier) . Anti-Americanism is used so frequently and in so many contexts that it's impossible to establish a proper definition. You choose to circumvent that by using the simplest definition: hatred of Americans based on geography and nationality. Which means there are a lot of self-haters out there (and what a comically absurd concept that is). The reality is much different. One can live according to Twain's principle "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." and yet, by your apparent definition, be considered anti-American. The distinction between dislike of a government or culture (for example) and dislike of the people is a necessary one, but it's a distinction you fail to make

Homophobe is fairly clear cut. Popular useage has given it a specific meaning, but you could, theoretically, interpret it literally to mean "fear of that which is the same". Similarily, anti-Semite has been popularly used to describe hatred of Jews, even though the term Semetic describes a language grouping. Anti-Americanism alone is too broad a term to have any real meaning, nor has popular usage resulted in a single working definition. Does it mean "against Americans"? If so, what of prominent American "anti-Americans" such as Chomsky or Zinn? Are they "self-haters"?

Yeah! Why can't they just cheat on each other in secret like the rest of us? I would certainly hope the kids aren't involved, as that would be both gross and illegal. Some people can handle it, others are probably not cut out for it. For some its "just sex", while others cannot seperate their emotions from the physical act. I disagree. Infidelity (that is, having sex with someone outsid ethe marriag ewithout the partners knowledge or consent) is one of the leading causes of divorce. Even then, it's not necessarily about the act as it is about the sense of betrayal. Eliminate the secrecy, get everything out in the open and, for some, you lessen that blow. Marriag emeans different things to different people. Could it be that marriage for some folks simply represents a emotional committment seperate from the sex act? Well, you can swing or be in an open relationship and still have safe sex. Right: because of entities like the Catholic Church that deem contraception a mortal sin, or "faith-based" sex education programs that spread misinformation on sex. Comprehensive sex ed and ready access to contraceptives is the surest way to reduce the spread of STD's, AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. You can take that to the bank.

Methinks Burnsy is projecting.

The term anti-Americanism is completely devoid of any meaning and is designed only to drain teh discussion of any context. How can you have anti-Americanism without first having a definition of what "Americanism" is? Are we talking state policy, culture, geography, what? Basically the term anti-Americanism (as it's been used so far in this discussion) is a catch-all for right-wingers who want to slur an opponent.

Pure, unadulterated rubbish. "FoxNews Canada" was Global's baby. The CRTC approved FOX News Canada on behalf of the Global Television Network for broadcast. The CRTC even went so far as to grant Global and Fox an extension on negotiations. The channel was never implemented by FOX, and the deadline for commencement of the service expired on November 24, 2004. 71 per cent to be exact. Or could it be that Fox goes out of its way to make liberals look dumb (like their house "liberal", the ineffectual Alan Colmes). Debate is non-existent on Fox News, much like truth is non-existent in your posts. And the unintentional irony award goes to.... Monty! Fox News and misperceptions Who's doing the brainwashing, again?

Yes, first because I'm philosophically opposed to the system as I feel it's a white elephant, a pig in a poke, a bill of goods. Secondly, I don't believe for one minute that the U.S. won't come to us with cap in hand at some point.

No, not never. But under very different circumstances than what you and other BMD proponents invision. Wouldn't it make more sense to ensure these countries don't get nukes in the first place? So we're back to this, which is disingenous at best. It's noty a matter of weighingthe cost of BMD versus the potential cost in lives, but of weighing teh cost of BMD with it's potential usefullness. Given that the threat of a ballistic missile attack is so low, I don't see the point in BMD.

So they still can't hit the continental U.S. North Korea I gues the question then becomes: does Al Qaeda have the resources to steal/buy an ICBM and actually launch the thing? Personally, I don't think this is a realistic threat, at least wehen compared to a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb. The threat stopped him from using any chemical weapons he might have had, didn't it? And, given that he was able to not only hang onto power, but further consolodate his hold on it, I think Saddam would consider himself the victor of the first Gulf War. Interesting thing: it's never the leadership of these organizations that are all fired up for mrtyrdom. They don't practice what they preach. So in that sense, they are just as committed to survival and retaining whatever power and influence they have as Saddam was and Kim Jong Il is. But I think we're getting far afield here. To sum up, I believe the nuclear missile threat posed to North America by "rogue" nations is very low and that such states are deterrable through existing means. I also believe the threat of individuals or terorist groups obtaining advanced missile technology is minute. I believe the cost of BMD both politically (as in the case of antagonizing Russia and China) and resource wise (money and personell) is disproportionate to the threat being faced. I believe these resources would be best directed to legitimate and pressing threats (such as securing ex-Soviet weapons stocks for example) than towards a costly system of dubious effectivness designed to mitigate a threat of miniscule proportions. From a Canadian perspective, I simply don't think Canada should be involved with BMD for those reasons and for the simple fact that there are more pressing needs within our current forces that require prompt attention.

Already a thread on this. And August, this is news becaus ethe situation between no wand then is dramatically different. For example, in 1981, there weren't 160,000 U.S. troops fighting a guerilla war smack in the middle of the region.

The U.S. has the largest stockpiole of nukes in the world. Why would they build them if they don't intend to use them? Wwe've had nuclear weapons hanging over our heads for more than half a century, yet they've never been used. Why? Key words: if pressed. Certainly not to make a point. Which brings us back to the detrrent value of nukes and the heart of why countries like Iran and North Korea are pursuing these programs. Both have been threatened by teh U.S.. Both are weak and so teh only way they can hope to deterr the U.S. is through nuclear weapons. th emore pressed tehse countries get, the more the U.S. rattles its sabre in their direction, the mor einsecure they feel and the more likely they are to pursue weapons. The same people have them today as had them 20 years ago. North Korea's ballistic missile program has been stalled for years and Iran is, according to U.S. estimates, at leats a decade removed fropm any kind of long-range capability. No, but your response needs to be in proportion to the threat. Personally I think the construction of a multi-billion dollar missile sheild to counter the threat of one rickety North Korean rocket is a disproportionate response. What straw man? I do not think that means what you think it means. Look closer. Obviously, both China and Russia have had long range nukes for years. But it seems they are taking BMD very seriously. Russia tests new wonder weapon Funny how lightly you take the rhetoric from the two most powerful nations after the U.S. I wonder, though, how would someone like bin laden would get a hold of an ICBM. Given the status and prestige these weapons give to countries, I don't think they'd be too inclined to just pass them along . And there were elements within the U.S. who felt America could survive a nuclear exchange and pushed for preemptive nuclear strikes. I think you're underestimating the survival instinct of someone like Kim Jong Il. Despots tend to be crafty and obsessed with holding power. They don't just want to throw everything the have away.

Actually, yeah, it is pretty funny given how closely your "firsthand" account follows the script. As for my point: you have no way to prove that such a thing did happened to your "friend". What, we're just supposed to take your word for it? (Of course there's always the possibility that you consider ex-Green Beret and fictional character John Rambo a close personal friend...) Second: it was not I who rendered this oft-told tale the staus of urban legend: that was Jerry Lembecke. But I'm sure he wouldn't dare question the credibility of an anonymous poster on an internet chat room. They never lie.

I think that's the first smart thing you've ever said.

So basically you are expecting us to believe that some nation will go through the trouble and expense of building nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and then, in a decision that would fly in the face of all logic and human nature, decide to attack the U.S. just for shits and giggles, knowing full well that such an attack would mean their nation's utter destuction? I suppose you'll be telling me Santa Clause exists next. Your confusing the mere existence of long range missiles with the threat they pose. From a purely theoretical standpoint, long-range missiles are still a threat. But, from a practical standpoint, the fact that there are a lot fewer now than there were even 20 years ago means that they are less of a threat. By the U.S.'s own admission, there are other, far greater threats. So as long as long-range missiles exist, they will constitute a threat, but the reality is they are not a big enough threat to justify the expense of BMD. Let me dumb it down even further: you stumble out of the bar on enight and come face to face with two toughs in an alley who are eyeing your wallet. One looks to be about 90 pounds soaking wet and is unarmed. The other is a muscular 250 pounder packing a knife. Do you address these threats by putting all you efforts into taking out the pipsqueak, or do you confront the bigger threat? Wow. Big red letters. I'm convinced. No. I simply said that Russia and China aren't the foes BMD is designed to counter. But I'm not sure they agree. So both Russia and China don't like BMD and are willin to build up their arsenals in response. Not exactly what I'd call a boon to stability.

(Note: Previous post was in response to IMR's latest load of fertilizer. Grantler posted while I was editing) First: American soldiers weren't spit on after Vietnam. That's an urban myth. Second: "support the soldiers" means different things. I know Americans who oppose the Iraq war, but support the troops by wanting to bring them home. Others interpret "supporting the tropps" as meaning you are not allowed to criticize the war or the way it is conducted. Others are content to slap a yellow ribbon bumper sticker on their car and forget the whole thing. Basically, "support the troops" is far too generic and broad a term to mean anything. Okay, but where do you draw the line? I just read an article about the widespread killing of civilians by U.S. trops in Fallujah. Does one "support their troops to do the job that Congress has asked them to do" by turning a blind eye to such events? Or does one say "Waitaminute! I can't support that or the people who did it." In other words, can one truly seperate the people from the "job"? How is it an unconcious decision to walk into a recruiting office, sign some forms, then undergo months of training etc etc.? I don't think anyone is waking up in a Humveee in baghdad saying "Wait: wasn't I just at the Orange Julius in Topeka? What the hell happened?" Yeah, the U.S. military recruits a disproportinate number of poor people. Many people join just to make a living. Fine. But it's possible to look at that situation and acknowledge that its f**ked up but still cast a critical eye at individuals. I'm not gonna give Chuck Graner a pass for being a backwoods hillbilly, nor am I going to excuse the sniper who blows a 5 year old kids brains out just because he'd rathe rbe in technical school. The choice to committ acts of inhumanity ultimately rests with the individual and individuals that make such choices don't derserve our unconditional support.