To all my American Brethren

[bush_cheney2004]

Australia, New Zeeland, South Africa, Rhodesia, Jamaica..etc etc etc....

Right...the Americans were the only ones who wanted instant gratification!

[g_bambino]

Right...the Americans were the only ones who wanted instant gratification!

Nobody except you has said such a thing.

[GostHacked]

Whos blaming others for Iraq? America went in unilaterally. If were going to blame anyone for anything, we blame ourselves for fighting that war with one hand tied behind our back. We should have gone in destroyed everything and everyone that needed destroying and then left. The purpose of offensive war should be to eliminate the other sides ability to wage war on you effectively.

Secondly, I believe it was WIP stated im a proponent of war and that I would like to see my kids fighting wars. In point of fact i stated that we should go to war when its appropriate not when we want to justify it with moral flexibility. What I am saying is that we should fight wars based on our needs not on the Moral compass of what the rest of the world views as right or wrong. If someone attacks or threatens the United States we should drop the hammer on them so hard that for 100 years the people of that country will still talk about the huge mistake there ancestors made. We should work to make our wars swift and crushing. By doing so we give our kids a chance to live a world realtively war free.

This does not sound like a moderate american to me at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nobody except you has said such a thing.

It isn't the first time....and certainly not the last.

[Leafless]

IMHO, Canada discovered a way for two groups to avoid violence and live peacefully together. Unfortunately, many Canadians today don't know their history and how this happened.

I agree that most Canadians do not know that it was through the efforts of traitorous politicians and that some Canadians were or are gullible enough to believe what you say.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Leafless

[JB Globe]

Americans, Friends, Countrymen. We stand at a crossroad that will define the next 100 years of our countries future. The basis of our existence as a country is built on the notation that all men are Capable of choosing there best course of action to achieve their personnel greatness. What we do now will determine whether we stand or fall in this world. Like Rome of old we have become weakened by the decadence and laziness of our way of life. We have had it good for so long that we have forgotten that greatness comes not from others telling us how to live and what to do, but in rolling up our collective sleeves and putting our sweat, tears, and blood into achieving our goals. We live now in a society that thinks it deserves something from us. That we owe them for something. I tell you now we will fall as a country if we continue this arrogant thought process. Its time for the people in this country with drive and ability to take back our country. To take it out of hands of looters and criminals.

We have lost are stomach for war, and the preservation of true freedom. We once believe in fighting for whats right. Not what is morally flexible at the time. Our Constitution is in danger of being torn apart by false lawmaking that interprets the constitution incorrectly to bend to the wills of people with agendas. Our politicians are corrupted by lobbyist who work for countries and companies who care nothing for American people. We fight wars while apologizing for it and tying a hand behind our back and asking our young men to fight for there lives but only enough to keep us from being looked down upon by a world that hates us. I say to heck with the world then. Let them feed the world, let them protect other countries innocent people. With one hand the beg us for our help and protection while on the other condemn us like spoiled children. We kill our enemies and apologize and pay off the same enemy when we our done. War is dirty, hard, and dangerous. Why fight the same enemy twice?

Its time, dear Americans, to shuck away this naive thinking that the government is there to save us. We must save ourselves. The government is made of the people, for the people, by the people. And the people have forgotten that. Fight for your country, fight for your people, fight for your rights, fight for your family, and fight for yourselves and never let this country come to a point where we no longer control our own lives. Freedom must never die, it must be fought for with every once of blood and sweat and time we can put into it.

Lastly, Never forget who you are and where you come from. Never let a man talk you into giving away your pride in your country. People complain all the time about flag flying, and national anthems, and such. they have no pride, they have no love for the country that provides them with the an opportunity to be greater then they ever could achieve anywhere else in the world. Never forget that even though your life is your own you live in a society built by the people around you that maximizes the freedoms you hold dear to yourself. It is are duty to not only protect ourselves but are neighbors as well. Only then will a government be rightly afraid of its people.

Choose to be free Americans. Earn that right, and protect it with all your heart as you protect those that love you.

To summarize, your solutions for America's current problems are: individual hard work, more nationalism . . .

More wars against unspecified enemies (wars of choice? Imperialist wars?), and at the same time Isolationism?

What wars does America need to fight? Why is it in vital danger without a war? And against whom?

[bush_cheney2004]

....What wars does America need to fight? Why is it in vital danger without a war? And against whom?

...the wars it chooses...regardless of "danger"....against the enemy (however defined).

Why does Canada fight wars?

[eyeball]

We have had it good for so long that we have forgotten that greatness comes not from others telling us how to live and what to do, but in rolling up our collective sleeves and putting our sweat, tears, and blood into achieving our goals.

No that's not right, you've simply persisted inn denying the fact that your greatness has been squanderd trying to tell everyone else how to live.

You, not to mention the rest of the world, would be far better off if you just went home, stayed there and gazed at your navel for at least a generation or two.

[moderateamericain]

No that's not right, you've simply persisted inn denying the fact that your greatness has been squanderd trying to tell everyone else how to live.

You, not to mention the rest of the world, would be far better off if you just went home, stayed there and gazed at your navel for at least a generation or two.

I dont deny that at all, I simply say screw everyone else let the rest of the world burn if it so chooses too. We no longer should try to be the worlds answer to xyz problem. If somalians want to kill eachother off in record numbers who am I or who are we as a country to try and stop them. But I do say, god Help you if you screw with the United States. There are a lot of assumptions being made by quite a few posters here about my Original post. Incorrectly I might add. Some of you seem to think I support the US trying to change the world over into our image, I dont. Why would I want the rest of the world to be able to compete on the same level as us. Stay in the mud huts. Some of you think I support any war at all. I don't, I do support bombing someone's military resources back into the stone age for attacking America. Attacking the US and by extension Canada should be such an expensive proposition that when some nut job in a cave proposes it, his buddy sitting on the rock next to him turns around and slaps him one.

Edited May 14, 2009 by moderateamericain

[bush_cheney2004]

.....You, not to mention the rest of the world, would be far better off if you just went home, stayed there and gazed at your navel for at least a generation or two.

Waiting for Canada to follow your advice......

[WIP]

Whos blaming others for Iraq? America went in unilaterally. If were going to blame anyone for anything, we blame ourselves for fighting that war with one hand tied behind our back. We should have gone in destroyed everything and everyone that needed destroying and then left. The purpose of offensive war should be to eliminate the other sides ability to wage war on you effectively.

If there was a legitimate reason for going to war in the first place! The Bush Administration never provided proof of WMD's and suppressed evidence that CIA informants were giving false information, and blew Valerie Plame's cover as a CIA agent because her husband revealed that the Niger Yellowcake Uranium story was a fraud. And we are now learning that claims of Al Qaeda being connected to Saddam Hussein were bogus confessions extracted by the use of torture. End result is a unilateral invasion that was fought for securing access to a new source of oil, and so that the former president could fulfill a personal goal of being a wartime president and getting the job done that his father failed to do......so when will the Obama Administration have the guts to put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, and any other co-conspirators on trial?

Secondly, I believe it was WIP stated im a proponent of war and that I would like to see my kids fighting wars. In point of fact i stated that we should go to war when its appropriate not when we want to justify it with moral flexibility. What I am saying is that we should fight wars based on our needs not on the Moral compass of what the rest of the world views as right or wrong. If someone attacks or threatens the United States we should drop the hammer on them so hard that for 100 years the people of that country will still talk about the huge mistake there ancestors made. We should work to make our wars swift and crushing. By doing so we give our kids a chance to live a world realtively war free.

Here's the problem: the United States effectively operates as a military empire with more than 1000 bases and installations around the world in more than 60 different countries....not all of them great enthusiasm among the locals! This empire could be justified during the days of the Cold War, but since then the U.S. has been the lone superpower, and has used its military to leverage political and economic advantage over other nations.

And maintaining an empire comes with a high cost (just ask the British). Four years ago, when the costs of the Iraq War were still escalating, Jane's Defense Weekly estimated that the U.S. defense budget would equal the military costs of the rest of the world combined! And the article notes that the lion's share of the spending goes to defense contractors building new weapons systems:

Its report - 'The Defence Industry in the 21st Century' by PwC's global aerospace and defence leader Richard Hooke - adds that "the US is in the driving seat", raising the prospect of a future scenario in which it could "dominate the supply of the world's arms completely".

And ofcourse Jane's sees this issue as an incentive for foreign military contractors to find a way to get a share of the military market, rather than asking the next obvious question: how much of U.S. foreign policy is driven by the needs and goals of these corporations that are in the war business? Eisenhower's nightmare scenario of the Military-Industrial Complex has come to life, since it seems to be the only manufacturing sector left in the U.S. economy.

So how much confidence can you have that your leaders are engaged in a "just war" given the U.S. government's pattern of trying to dominate the political and economic decisions of other nations partially through using its military as an intimidation tactic?

I can't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things, but so far, he seems to be the only U.S. politician who has asked Americans to imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end:

Imagine an Occupied America

by Rep. Ron Paul (Republican member US House of Representatives)

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a

large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands

of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in

military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us

safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of U.S. law, and that the Constitution

did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made

mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized

innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with

little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up

checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire

neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign

troops and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their

presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that

they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and

sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to

do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents

for their defensive actions, and routinely killed or captured and tortured by

the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that

if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead,

for every American killed, 10 more would take up arms against them,

resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the

foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they

elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this

horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the

people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were

stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a

globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that

incites a lot of hatred and resentment toward us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime

motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of reevaluating our

foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those

responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if

we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we

wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These

are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new

administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling

troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of

the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home.

Fifty thousand troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more

than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with

threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening

ourselves up to friendship, honest trade, and diplomacy is the foreign policy

of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us

in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the

disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming

from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy will change

eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it

are exhausted.

http://www.no-bases.org/show_news/republic...t_against_bases

Now doesn't that put the concept of fighting "just wars" in a whole new light? I think a lot of people who supported Barack Obama were expecting some sort of bold reform strategy such as this, and are getting agitated that he has turned into Bush Lite, unwilling to do anything dramatic that might carry a high short-term political cost.

[bush_cheney2004]

....End result is a unilateral invasion that was fought for securing access to a new source of oil, and so that the former president could fulfill a personal goal of being a wartime president and getting the job done that his father failed to do......so when will the Obama Administration have the guts to put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, and any other co-conspirators on trial?

Not quite unilateral...the UK, AUS, and others joined in the fray. (Canada's role in such things does not define "multilateralism"). There will be no trials....ever.

Here's the problem: the United States effectively operates as a military empire with more than 1000 bases and installations around the world in more than 60 different countries....not all of them great enthusiasm among the locals! This empire could be justified during the days of the Cold War, but since then the U.S. has been the lone superpower, and has used its military to leverage political and economic advantage over other nations.

Why was it justified during the Cold War? Such a fickle compass?

And ofcourse Jane's sees this issue as an incentive for foreign military contractors to find a way to get a share of the military market, rather than asking the next obvious question: how much of U.S. foreign policy is driven by the needs and goals of these corporations that are in the war business? Eisenhower's nightmare scenario of the Military-Industrial Complex has come to life, since it seems to be the only manufacturing sector left in the U.S. economy.

Nonsense...the US DoD budget is only a small part of the US federal budget, let alone total GDP. Seems that today's concern is more about light trucks and cars than laser guided bombs.

So how much confidence can you have that your leaders are engaged in a "just war" given the U.S. government's pattern of trying to dominate the political and economic decisions of other nations partially through using its military as an intimidation tactic?

Lots of confidence...it has worked quite well for over 200 years.

I can't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things, but so far, he seems to be the only U.S. politician who has asked Americans to imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end:

There are lots of others....but how would you know? Americans know what it is like.....Canada...not so much.

Now doesn't that put the concept of fighting "just wars" in a whole new light? I think a lot of people who supported Barack Obama were expecting some sort of bold reform strategy such as this, and are getting agitated that he has turned into Bush Lite, unwilling to do anything dramatic that might carry a high short-term political cost.

They were just as naive as candidate Obama.

As for "just wars", that is just more of the same naivete. The United States can and will prosecute military actions when deemed in its best interest or the interest of allied nations. So does Canada.

Edited May 17, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

Not quite unilateral...the UK, AUS, and others joined in the fray. (Canada's role in such things does not define "multilateralism"). There will be no trials....ever.

It was certainly not the coalition that Bush Sr. had to push Saddam out of Kuwait! And none of the allies would have joined a coalition army to invade and occupy Iraq, if they were aware that WMD and yellow-cake uranium stories were lies.

Why was it justified during the Cold War? Such a fickle compass?

It certainly was to the countries who feared Communist takeover, and agreed to hosting U.S. bases and troops for that reason.

Nonsense...the US DoD budget is only a small part of the US federal budget, let alone total GDP. Seems that today's concern is more about light trucks and cars than laser guided bombs.

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to US$515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to US$651.2 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (about $9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $33.2 billion), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, about $170 billion in 2007). As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States

The one trillion total that includes some of the known off-budget military costs, would be about one third of total federal government spending! That is an onerous burden, especially if it is not making the U.S. more secure. Some military costs have never been honestly accounted for, such as the medical costs of injured soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. As they get older, the costs of their medical and psychiatric care will keep climbing for the next 20 years or so.

Lots of confidence...it has worked quite well for over 200 years.

It worked for Great Britain for a long time as well, but they had enough sense after WWII to realize the party was over, and bring their colonial empire to a close.

One little factoid you might want to consider is that the U.S. empire is right where Britain was after WWI -- up till then, coal was the energy source that fueled industry and shipping. But the transition to an oil economy left England without control of the new source of energy; and they never did get a significant hold of oil, which was dominated by those upstart Americans, who not only had lots of their own oil, they even jumped in and outmuscled the British and the other Europeans for control over the development of MiddleEast oil.

But now U.S. domestic reserves are just about depleted (the offshore stuff is too costly), and there are no foreign sources that are easy to access (and that's one of the reasons why there is suspicion over U.S. motives in Iraq). The post-oil economy is not centered in the U.S., since America has made no serious efforts to develop alternative sources of energy in the way that Germany, France, and other European countries have. As the cost of oil increases, so does the cost of maintaining a military operation that has so much focus on securing expensive, foreign sources of oil.

There are lots of others....but how would you know? Americans know what it is like.....Canada...not so much.

Are you smoking the same stuff benny is on? The U.S. was last invaded back in 1814, and that was the result of an overreach by your side. Paul's "shoe on the other foot" analogy is about the only way an average American can understand the objections to U.S. military presence felt in much of the Third World towards the U.S.

They were just as naive as candidate Obama.

As for "just wars", that is just more of the same naivete. The United States can and will prosecute military actions when deemed in its best interest or the interest of allied nations. So does Canada.

Thank you Mr. Cheney! Now, back to your secret, undisclosed location!

[bush_cheney2004]

It was certainly not the coalition that Bush Sr. had to push Saddam out of Kuwait! And none of the allies would have joined a coalition army to invade and occupy Iraq, if they were aware that WMD and yellow-cake uranium stories were lies.

The coalition wasn't suppose to be the same as before. Other nations most certainly would have invaded regardless of WMD.

It certainly was to the countries who feared Communist takeover, and agreed to hosting U.S. bases and troops for that reason.

The USA is the same as it ever was...you can't just pick and choose when the invasions are "justified".

The one trillion total that includes some of the known off-budget military costs, would be about one third of total federal government spending! That is an onerous burden, especially if it is not making the U.S. more secure. Some military costs have never been honestly accounted for, such as the medical costs of injured soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. As they get older, the costs of their medical and psychiatric care will keep climbing for the next 20 years or so.

That's a lot of hand waving that does not support your original contention vis-a-vis the American economy, manufacturing, or consumption. The US economy, as has been ably demonstrated most recently, is driven far more by consumer spending and debt, not DoD appropriations, on or off budget.

It worked for Great Britain for a long time as well, but they had enough sense after WWII to realize the party was over, and bring their colonial empire to a close.

The US is not a colonial empire...it is far more pervasive than that. Guess who replaced Great Britain (your empire)?

One little factoid you might want to consider is that the U.S. empire is right where Britain was after WWI -- up till then, coal was the energy source that fueled industry and shipping. But the transition to an oil economy left England without control of the new source of energy; and they never did get a significant hold of oil, which was dominated by those upstart Americans, who not only had lots of their own oil, they even jumped in and outmuscled the British and the other Europeans for control over the development of MiddleEast oil.

Where do you think the capital for oil development in Canada came from?

But now U.S. domestic reserves are just about depleted (the offshore stuff is too costly), and there are no foreign sources that are easy to access (and that's one of the reasons why there is suspicion over U.S. motives in Iraq). The post-oil economy is not centered in the U.S., since America has made no serious efforts to develop alternative sources of energy in the way that Germany, France, and other European countries have. As the cost of oil increases, so does the cost of maintaining a military operation that has so much focus on securing expensive, foreign sources of oil.

Of course...Brazil will become the next superpower! The USA still produces lots of oil last time I checked. Europe imports plenty of oil. Even Canada imports about 900,000 bpd.

Are you smoking the same stuff benny is on? The U.S. was last invaded back in 1814, and that was the result of an overreach by your side. Paul's "shoe on the other foot" analogy is about the only way an average American can understand the objections to U.S. military presence felt in much of the Third World towards the U.S.

The US has been attacked and invaded several times since 1814. So what's Canada's excuse for romping and stomping on Third World locals?

[JB Globe]

...the wars it chooses...regardless of "danger"....against the enemy (however defined).

Well that's descriptive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well that's descriptive.

No...it is prescriptive.

[Oleg Bach]

No...it is prescriptive.

Bring it on! I just wish I had one of those ill fitting flight suits that gives you a wedgie front and back - at least as the two nations wage war - BC and I will sit in real nice teak deck chairs and drink brandy as we look at the battle from top of the castle wall --- and we will have stocks in military supplies - get on with it - I'm poor and need a war to stimulate my economy ----but no real killing - just property destruction - Then BC and I can cut a deal and be part of the real profitable "rebuilding" project...Whatdaya say BC? You in? Toss a few rotten tomatoes across the boarder - that should get it going.

[Sir Bandelot]

Bring it on! I just wish I had one of those ill fitting flight suits that gives you a wedgie front and back - at least as the two nations wage war - BC and I will sit in real nice teak deck chairs and drink brandy as we look at the battle from top of the castle wall --- and we will have stocks in military supplies - get on with it - I'm poor and need a war to stimulate my economy ----but no real killing - just property destruction - Then BC and I can cut a deal and be part of the real profitable "rebuilding" project...Whatdaya say BC? You in? Toss a few rotten tomatoes across the boarder - that should get it going.

Get a room