America Envy/Anti-Americanism - Whence it Came

[jbg]

I'm glad that a stable, democratic country is the world's only super-power

Add that it's the only country yours shares a border with, a good thing. Just ask India or Israel.

...but i would much rather that super-power be a country less right-leaning, more progressive in human rights, & less obsessed with blowing people up.

The US had a lot of people blow up at the WTC. The government wouldn't be doing its job for not avenging same.

As far as human rights, we are about the most racially and religiously integrated country in the history of the world. How much more "progressive" can we be in human rights?

The fact that a good portion of Americans still have a problem with a woman or black person becoming President says a lot about how far the U.S. still has to go.

The problem is in who the woman or black person is. Remember, supposedly reactionary Louisiana just elected a second-generation Indian immigrant as governor. Barak and Hilary would be unmitigated disasters as President. Give us the right candidate of any color, they can be elected.

[jbg]

How many black leadership candidates have there been in our history? How many women have been elected PM?

Kim Campbell was elected from her riding and by her party as leader.

[Guest American Woman]

The fact that a good portion of Americans still have a problem with a woman or black person becoming President says a lot about how far the U.S. still has to go.

Since you are stating this as a fact, would you mind posting a link to your sourcefor that information? Thank you.

[M.Dancer]

Kim Campbell was elected from her riding and by her party as leader.

But she was never elected as leader of her party to stand as PM. Just as Ford was never elected President...

[Guest American Woman]

And Campbell held the office for less than five months. Has any PM ever held it for less than she did? One could say it was because of her gender, that Canadians had a problem with a woman being PM, eh Moonlight Graham?

Edited January 3, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

And Campbell held the office for less than five months. Has any PM ever held it for less than she did? One could say it was because of her gender, that Canadians had a problem with a woman being PM, eh Moonlight Graham?

She called the election. The was the election of the deserting rats leaving the sinking ship....although she lost, it wasn't her gender that was the issue, it was the pervading miasma left by Brian Mulroney whom she took over from. All the big name tories fled and the PC were left with what? 2 seats?

[jbg]

But she was never elected as leader of her party to stand as PM. Just as Ford was never elected President...

Ford's situation was "one of a kind". Under the Parliamentary system, this kind of "transition" with a PM "unelected" PM's seems to be rather common. In addition to Kim Campbell, John Napier Turner and, for a while Paul Martin served as PM in that manner. I am sure there are other situations where a party leader/PM "stood down" prior to the end of the mandate, and a new party leader took over. In Britain, John Major and Harold McMillan come to mind, though I believe they did win election once in his own right.

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting...so do you feel that the imperialist and arrogant America that existed before WWII and helped preserve the Empire and Commonwealth was OK? America is the same as it ever was, including the government.

Early American imperialism was not ok, no. But neither was European imperialism at the same time. I guess you could say the US gov'ts have been similar, but certainly different in the power & influence they had on the world.

[Moonlight Graham]

Aside from that, the world's most stable democracy has a governmental system that is the envy of almost every nation outside of Canada and the west...

Its a wonderful system as i have stated, but i am just questioning the actions of some of the individuals working within that system. Not that Canada is perfect by any means, nor could i even say that Canada would have done a better job if we were in the U.S.'s position of power. That doesn't mean i can't criticize the U.S. gov't for its failures (just as i would my own gov't).

As the great philosopher Ben Parker (Spider-Man's uncle) once said: "With great power comes great responsibility".

[Moonlight Graham]

Show them this post and see how long they'll remain your friends.

My American friends know quite well how i feel about their government. Most of them agree with me.

Peaceful? Read your history! Peaceful my foot.

As i said, Canada's independence from Britain was mostly peaceful (save minor rebellions in Upper/Lower Canada) and did not involve a violent revolution. Canada's independence was a counter-revolution, which was a direct result of the U.S. Revolution, where Britain feared would be repeated in Canada & thus granted us responsible gov't and eventually came the BNA Act in 1867.

You don't believe a word you're saying so save it.

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document which has influenced the democratic consititutions of many countries & the spread of liberal democracy throughout the world. People like James Madison, responsible for things like the seperation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism in the constitution, were indeed brilliant.

I admire the system that the U.S. governs itself with, but that doesn't mean i admire the actions of some of the people who have held power in that system. There's a huge difference.

[Moonlight Graham]

The US had a lot of people blow up at the WTC. The government wouldn't be doing its job for not avenging same.

Since when does "vengeance" equate to justice in American society, or most countries in the west for that matter? When somebody murders a family of four, the courts don't order the murderer & his 3 closest family members to death. When you use violence to seek justice for violence, all you do is create more violence. Americans know this, that's why your system of law isn't based on "eye-for-an-eye", and you have laws protecting against "cruel & unusual punishment". So why is U.S. foreign policy (and many western countries, including Canada at times, for that matter) not consistent with its domestic policy? That's not to say military action wasn't needed after 9/11, but i don't see how we are any safer long-term, and i certainly wouldn't call what the west has done to Afghanistan & Iraq "justice".

As far as human rights, we are about the most racially and religiously integrated country in the history of the world. How much more "progressive" can we be in human rights?

Abu Ghraib, water-boarding (and the continued debate of it among presidential candidates!?!), gov't sponsored foreign regime changes/coups/assassitions (or attempts of), military actions based on protecting delicious oil, non-military action based on it not protecting delicious oil (Rwanda, Sudan), pooping on the Geneva Conventions

Why does the U.S. not extend its respect for domestic human rights into its foreign policies? It is not only the U.S., many in the west do the same, but the U.S. is by far the biggest perpetrator.

[Moonlight Graham]

Since you are stating this as a fact, would you mind posting a link to your sourcefor that information? Thank you.

Just google it & you'll find a lot of stuff like this:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politica...r-black-or.html

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14824/

http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/200.../research.shtml

[Moonlight Graham]

But she was never elected as leader of her party to stand as PM. Just as Ford was never elected President...

The Canadian public does not vote for the PM, they vote for an MP in their riding. The PM is whomever holds the confidence of the House, almost always coming from the party of majority. The PM is, technically, determined after the federal election is over.

However, i understand your point.

[Guest American Woman]

Just google it & you'll find a lot of stuff like this:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politica...r-black-or.html

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14824/

http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/200.../research.shtml

Your sources do not back up what you claimed. You said it's a "fact that a good portion of Americans still have a problem with a woman or black person becoming President," but those polls show nothing of the kind. The polls aren't asking the question "do you have a problem with a woman or black person becoming president;" they ask "do you think the nation is ready for a woman or black president." Someone who is totally and completely supportive of it could say "no, I don't think the country is ready for it." They are two completely different things. Furthermore, the majority polled do think the nation is ready.

So your statement that it's a fact that a "good portion of Americans still have a problem with a woman or black person becoming President" is totally incorrect. And your conclusion that the U.S. "still has a long way to go" is erroneous. Criticizing the government is one thing, but saying things like this about Americans is quite another. We'd no sooner "have a problem" with a woman or black president than Canadians would have with a woman or black PM. As M. Dancer pointed out, you don't have a history of either in Canada. One woman being appointed for a less than five month run doesn't make you much-more-enlightened in that area than we are.

Edited January 4, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

So why is U.S. foreign policy (and many western countries, including Canada at times, for that matter) not consistent with its domestic policy?

Because one is foreign, and the other domestic. Works out better that way when dropping GBUs.

That's not to say military action wasn't needed after 9/11, but i don't see how we are any safer long-term, and i certainly wouldn't call what the west has done to Afghanistan & Iraq "justice".

It was never intended to be "justice".

Abu Ghraib, water-boarding (and the continued debate of it among presidential candidates!?!), gov't sponsored foreign regime changes/coups/assassitions (or attempts of), military actions based on protecting delicious oil, non-military action based on it not protecting delicious oil (Rwanda, Sudan), pooping on the Geneva Conventions

...and more than that. See the job description for superpower and middling power.

Why does the U.S. not extend its respect for domestic human rights into its foreign policies? It is not only the U.S., many in the west do the same, but the U.S. is by far the biggest perpetrator.

For the same reasons as Canada...it doesn't have to.

[jbg]

Since when does "vengeance" equate to justice in American society, or most countries in the west for that matter? When somebody murders a family of four, the courts don't order the murderer & his 3 closest family members to death. When you use violence to seek justice for violence, all you do is create more violence. Americans know this, that's why your system of law isn't based on "eye-for-an-eye", and you have laws protecting against "cruel & unusual punishment". So why is U.S. foreign policy (and many western countries, including Canada at times, for that matter) not consistent with its domestic policy? That's not to say military action wasn't needed after 9/11, but i don't see how we are any safer long-term, and i certainly wouldn't call what the west has done to Afghanistan & Iraq "justice".

The way individuals conduct themselves is far different from the way a government must conduct itself. It would be most unsafe to allow private revenge. A government must, however, extract revenge on behalf of all of the people both against criminals and renegade countries.

Abu Ghraib, water-boarding (and the continued debate of it among presidential candidates!?!), gov't sponsored foreign regime changes/coups/assassitions (or attempts of), military actions based on protecting delicious oil, non-military action based on it not protecting delicious oil (Rwanda, Sudan), pooping on the Geneva Conventions

You're going to seriousy equate Abu Ghraib with 911? Or waterboarding, a sport done on beaches with a massacre?

Why does the U.S. not extend its respect for domestic human rights into its foreign policies? It is not only the U.S., many in the west do the same, but the U.S. is by far the biggest perpetrator.

Ask Jimmy Carter.

[Guest American Woman]

The way individuals conduct themselves is far different from the way a government must conduct itself. It would be most unsafe to allow private revenge. A government must, however, extract revenge on behalf of all of the people both against criminals and renegade countries.

No, a government has to do no such thing. It has to protect the people and bring the guilty to justice, but it most definitely does not have too "extract revenge on behalf of the people." Killing thousands of innocent Afghans is terrible enough in an attempt to prevent another 9-11, but to kill them in an act of revenge is unthinkable. It's just as savage as the original terrorist act.

You're going to seriousy equate Abu Ghraib with 911? Or waterboarding, a sport done on beaches with a massacre?

You're going to seriously joke about water boarding, equating it to a "sport done on beaches?" Take it from me, you're not helping your argument with such nonsense.

Edited January 4, 2008 by American Woman

[jbg]

You're going to seriously joke about water boarding, equating it to a "sport done on beaches?" Take it from me, you're not helping your argument with such nonsense.

I apologize for the effort to inject some humor. But still wasterboarding is not, from what I gather, physically painful. Also these are no angels that are being waterboarded. No one in the US intelligence is going to waste their time waterboarding straightforward people like you or me, or even routin Afghan villagers. They know who their targets are.

[Guest American Woman]

I apologize for the effort to inject some humor. But still wasterboarding is not, from what I gather, physically painful. Also these are no angels that are being waterboarded. No one in the US intelligence is going to waste their time waterboarding straightforward people like you or me, or even routin Afghan villagers. They know who their targets are.

So when we engage in torture techniques, you think it calls for humor. Got'cha. But you'll have to pardon me if I don't laugh.

Waterboarding has been considered torture for over a century. It's banned by the U.S. military and soldiers engaging in it have been punished even as early as 1901. Yet when our troops engage in such behavior now, you make an "effort to inject some humor" about it. Do you try to inject some humor when it's our troops being tortured? I would guess your attitude about this is exactly what Moonlight Graham was referring to in his posts.

[capricorn]

I admire the system that the U.S. governs itself with, but that doesn't mean i admire the actions of some of the people who have held power in that system. There's a huge difference.

Agreed. Incompetence in government has at times been experienced right here in Canada but this has not caused us to scrap our system.

[Moonlight Graham]

And your conclusion that the U.S. "still has a long way to go" is erroneous. Criticizing the government is one thing, but saying things like this about Americans is quite another. We'd no sooner "have a problem" with a woman or black president than Canadians would have with a woman or black PM.

Well i'm probably not going to find any surveys of people saying they straight-out wouldn't vote for a woman or black, even if they felt that way. I'll take it back for it being "a fact". I respect your posts, & i also don't want this debate to go down an ugly road down somehow so i'll give ya the win on this one.

[Moonlight Graham]

It was never intended to be "justice".

In my opinion, i think a part of it was. People were very angry after 9/11. Don't make me quote a Toby Keith song! Ahh what the heck:

"Courtesy Of The Red, White, And Blue (The Angry American)

by Toby Keith

American girls and American guys, will always stand up and salute.

We'll always recognize, when we see ol' glory flying,

There's a lot of men dead,

So we can sleep in peace at night when we lay down our heads.

My daddy served in the army where he lost his right eye,

But he flew a flag out in our yard 'til the day that he died.

He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me.

To grow up and live happy in the land of the free.

Now this nation that I love is fallin' under attack.

A mighty sucker-punch came flying in from somewhere in the back.

Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye,

Man, we lit up your world like the fourth of July.

Hey, Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,

And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.

And the eagle will fly and it's gonna be hell,

When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell.

And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.

Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.

Instrumental break.

Oh, justice will be served and the battle will rage:

This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage.

An' you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A.

'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.

Hey, Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,

And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.

And the eagle will fly and it's gonna be hell,

When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell.

And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.

Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.

Oh, oh.

Of the red, white and blue.

Oh, hey, oh.

Of my Red, White and Blue."

[Moonlight Graham]

I apologize for the effort to inject some humor. But still wasterboarding is not, from what I gather, physically painful. Also these are no angels that are being waterboarded. No one in the US intelligence is going to waste their time waterboarding straightforward people like you or me, or even routin Afghan villagers. They know who their targets are.

It is attitudes like this that make the world a worse place to live in.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Geneva Conventions

[Oleg Bach]

It is attitudes like this that make the world a worse place to live in.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Geneva Conventions

"Waterboarding is not painful" - where the hell do these people come from? Did you have a father that held your head in the sink till you thought you were going to die - in order for you as a 3 year old not to we the bed? Lunitics are bountiful these days it seems - Every time I see a weakling supporting killing - or torturing - it makes me wonder - actually it makes me think that all these sadistic cowards need one thing - square off with me in a standard old fashioned street fight - I WILL BET A MILLION BUCKS- that not one of these jerks cold hold there own in traditional mutual combat..that these condoners of tormenting human beings - would cower and weep like little girls if they had to actually take on another man physically in a fight - those arm chair critics that attempt to impose sadism as normal on society could not fight there way out of a wet paper bag as they say - For anyone of these little girly weasils that attempts to enforce barbarism from their comfortable little board room I have one name for you - WORM.

[jbg]

So when we engage in torture techniques, you think it calls for humor. Got'cha. But you'll have to pardon me if I don't laugh.

Waterboarding has been considered torture for over a century. It's banned by the U.S. military and soldiers engaging in it have been punished even as early as 1901. Yet when our troops engage in such behavior now, you make an "effort to inject some humor" about it. Do you try to inject some humor when it's our troops being tortured? I would guess your attitude about this is exactly what Moonlight Graham was referring to in his posts.

I actually don't even know what waterboarding is.