Bush knew detainees were innocent

[bush_cheney2004]

You'd think such power, while it exists, would be put to "better use". 21 years of the US and its allies being the unopposed global superpower and what do we have to show for it? A few toppled dictators in some worthless wastelands~

...only if you consider Eastern Europe to be a "wasteland" as well. Middle East oil makes the "wasteland" quite desireable.

[bush_cheney2004]

I seriously doubt regime change would have happened in Iraq if there were no terror attacks on the US in NY.

There was internal and external pressure on Saddam's Iraq regardless of "terror attacks". 1998's "Operation Desert Fox" was an effort to decapitate Saddam's regime long before 9/11.

[Bonam]

...only if you consider Eastern Europe to be a "wasteland" as well.

The liberation of eastern Europe pretty much happened during the fall of the Soviet Union and as a result of the immediate aftermath, not so much as a result of the US's activities as an unchallenged power since then. Moreover much of eastern Europe remains a pretty craptastic place to live.

Middle East oil makes the "wasteland" quite desireable.

And yet there are much more direct and cheaper ways to obtain that oil than the ones the US undertook. Not to mention that for the price of the Iraq and Afghan wars (trillions of dollars) the US could instead have by now invested in the technology to make the need for oil far less. As a means to secure natural resources the wars were a horrible waste.

[bush_cheney2004]

The liberation of eastern Europe pretty much happened during the fall of the Soviet Union and as a result of the immediate aftermath, not so much as a result of the US's activities as an unchallenged power since then. Moreover much of eastern Europe remains a pretty craptastic place to live.

No...there were NATO and UN operations well into the year 1999, as well as expanded NATO membership which continues to this day.

Eastern Europe may be "crapstatic" to you, but the EU seeks to challenge that perception.

And yet there are much more direct and cheaper ways to obtain that oil than the ones the US undertook. Not to mention that for the price of the Iraq and Afghan wars (trillions of dollars) the US could instead have by now invested in the technology to make the need for oil far less. As a means to secure natural resources the wars were a horrible waste.

It's not just about oil for US import, which is actually more diversified to other sources these days. The basic thing that many people do not seem to understand is the global nature of our hydrocarbon economy and the impact of supply on all nations (Japan, India, Australia, China, France, etc,. That's one of the reasons the US spends the money on defense and forward deployed forces.

It's not just about the USA.

[Bonam]

No...there were NATO and UN operations well into the year 1999, as well as expanded NATO membership which continues to this day.

Yeah you got Kosovo, congrats. And what exactly does new membership to NATO do when most NATO allies don't bother to help the US (much) with its various wars? ;p

Eastern Europe may be "crapstatic" to you, but the EU seeks to challenge that perception.

Cool I wish them luck.

It's not just about oil for US import, which is actually more diversified to other sources these days.

Yeah most of your oil comes from Canada.

The basic thing that many people do not seem to understand is the global nature of our hydrocarbon economy and the impact of supply on all nations (Japan, India, Australia, China, France, etc,. That's one of the reasons the US spends the money on defense and forward deployed forces.

Wait, so your claim is that American soldiers are off dying in Iraq so that a more stable supply of oil can be provided for China and India?

It's not just about the USA.

It's American foreign policy. If it's not all about the USA, it ought to be.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah you got Kosovo, congrats. And what exactly does new membership to NATO do when most NATO allies don't bother to help the US (much) with its various wars? ;p

NATO is not about just the US...it is a collective security treaty. It is one of the main reasons Canada is in Afghanistan. The USA maintains separate command structure with far more dedicated resources.

Cool I wish them luck.

Luck (and hard work) has been with them so far.

Yeah most of your oil comes from Canada.

Nope....Canada is the largest of several foreign suppliers. The USA produces far more oil than Canada, which actually imports about 900,000 bpd from other nations as well.

Wait, so your claim is that American soldiers are off dying in Iraq so that a more stable supply of oil can be provided for China and India?

World consumption is about 80 million bpd....it doesn't take rocket science to figure out the impact of reduced supply and rising demand. That's was Cheney's energy agenda was all about.

It's American foreign policy. If it's not all about the USA, it ought to be.

It is in the end, but on a scale that Canada cannot relate to.

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

NATO is not about just the US...it is a collective security treaty. It is one of the main reasons Canada is in Afghanistan. The US a maintains separate command structure with far more dedicated resources.

NATO was an alliance designed to stand against the thread of the Soviet Union. Frankly, it is obsolete. Each nation maintains a separate command structure within its own military, that's not unique to the US.

Luck (and hard work) has been with them so far.

Sure. Again, not much to do with the US. In fact the EU seems to be saturated with more and more anti-American rhetoric.

Nope....Canada is the largest of several foreign suppliers.

Sorry that's what I meant, poor wording.

World consumption is about 80 million bpd....it doesn't take rocket science to figure out the impact of reduced supply and rising demand.

That's assuming that every country gets access to the same supply and the same demand. If a nation is going to fight a war over resources, you'd think they'd do it in such a way as to get themselves a preferential and cheap supply, rather than expending lives and money just to provide everyone, including their rivals, equal access. And, like I said, for the multitrillion dollar pricetag, the US could have reduced its own need for oil by far more than the oil output of Iraq could possibly be increased over its pre-invasion levels even in the most optimistic scenarios.

[bush_cheney2004]

NATO was an alliance designed to stand against the thread of the Soviet Union. Frankly, it is obsolete. Each nation maintains a separate command structure within its own military, that's not unique to the US.

The point being that NATO has redefined it's post Cold War role and scope, independent of specific American policy.

Sure. Again, not much to do with the US. In fact the EU seems to be saturated with more and more anti-American rhetoric.

Except for Poland, Albania, Ukraine, other Balkans, etc.

Sorry that's what I meant, poor wording.

Remember, the investment in Canada's tarsands developmet and offshore platforms was largely foreign, and that was majority American capital.

That's assuming that every country gets access to the same supply and the same demand. If a nation is going to fight a war over resources, you'd think they'd do it in such a way as to get themselves a preferential and cheap supply, rather than expending lives and money just to provide everyone, including their rivals, equal access. And, like I said, for the multitrillion dollar pricetag, the US could have reduced its own need for oil by far more than the oil output of Iraq could possibly be increased over its pre-invasion levels even in the most optimistic scenarios.

The larger geo-political point is that global instability caused by disruption threatens vital US and world interests. Cheney and company did the math. The "multi-trillion" dollar pricetag is misleading when counting recurring and nonrecurring defense budget costs, and there is no guarantee that investment made in the USA would not prevent global energy calamity.

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

The point being that NATO has redefined it's post Cold War role and scope, independent of specific American policy.

And just what is this redefined NATO role and scope?

Remember, the investment in Canada's tarsands developmet and offshore platforms was largely foreign, and that was majority American capital.

Yup more American spending primarily benefiting other countries.

The larger geo-political point is that global instability caused by disruption threatens vital US and world interests. Cheney and company did the math.

And just how much more stable is the world supply of oil due to the Iraq invasion? Iraq is just one state of many that provides oil, and it was hardly the largest. Moreover years of war in Iraq created instability in the region that reduced the stability of the oil supply. And, furthermore, with Iraq removed as an equal rival to Iran, the region is becoming less stable now if anything. If Cheney did some math, I'd say he forgot to carry the 2.

The "multi-trillion" dollar pricetag is misleading when counting recurring and nonrecurring defense budget costs, and there is no guarantee that investment made in the USA would not prevent global energy calamity.

Much of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is beyond the normal defense department spending as I'm sure you well know. Investment in the USA would create new technology that could reduce oil demand in America and also earn America a lot of extra money as its corporations exported and sold such technology to other nations. Whether it is advanced nuclear, or efficient oil from coal, or fuel cells that have the needed price and performance to actually compete, or better electric energy storage, or fusion energy, or many other technologies, they would reduce worldwide oil demand and earn the US a lot of money, boosting its economy.

Sorry but the arguments for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can only be made from the point of view that they posed some kind of threat and had to be eliminated for that reason. Trying to argue it from an economic point of view as a cost effective way to ensure global energy cost stability is doomed to failure.

[bush_cheney2004]

And just what is this redefined NATO role and scope?

It's role has been redefined as collective security and intervention which is global in scope.

Yup more American spending primarily benefiting other countries.

The secret of a lone superpower.

And just how much more stable is the world supply of oil due to the Iraq invasion? Iraq is just one state of many that provides oil, and it was hardly the largest. Moreover years of war in Iraq created instability in the region that reduced the stability of the oil supply. And, furthermore, with Iraq removed as an equal rival to Iran, the region is becoming less stable now if anything. If Cheney did some math, I'd say he forgot to carry the 2.

Wrong...the math included post 9/11 parameters, and sought to maintain the existing baseline while bringing Iraq's obsolete and bombed out infrastructure on line with US contractors over France and Russia.

Much of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is beyond the normal defense department spending as I'm sure you well know. Investment in the USA would create new technology that could reduce oil demand in America and also earn America a lot of extra money as its corporations exported and sold such technology to other nations.

And as I'm sure you are aware, the energy density of petroleum is quite remarkable and economical even in the face of such recurring and non-recurring costs. "Could" or "should" isn't good enough for real time energy needs while transitioning to so called "green energy".

Whether it is advanced nuclear, or efficient oil from coal, or fuel cells that have the needed price and performance to actually compete, or better electric energy storage, or fusion energy, or many other technologies, they would reduce worldwide oil demand and earn the US a lot of money, boosting its economy.

All in progress or online, but not cost competitive with the existing hydrocarbon economy. In the end, economics will make this decision, not engineers.

Sorry but the arguments for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can only be made from the point of view that they posed some kind of threat and had to be eliminated for that reason. Trying to argue it from an economic point of view as a cost effective way to ensure global energy cost stability is doomed to failure.

One reason the United States maintains the largest navy in the world (and has done so for many years - $$$$$$$$) is expressly for this economic policy and purpose. To ignore this is "doomed to failure".

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

It's role has been redefined as collective security and intervention which is global in scope.

Seems pretty vague. And many members seem unwilling to contribute much to this global intervention.

Wrong...the math included post 9/11 parameters, and sought to maintain the existing baseline while bringing Iraq's obsolete and bombed out infrastructure on line with US contractors over France and Russia.

All of this in the hands of an Iraqi government which could turn against the US at any time in the future.

And as I'm sure you are aware, the energy density of petroleum is quite remarkable and economical even in the face of such recurring and non-recurring costs. "Could" or "should" isn't good enough for real time energy needs while transitioning to so called "green energy".

The energy density of petroleum is fine, nothing amazing though. It pales in comparison to the energy density of any nuclear technology.

All in progress or online, but not cost competitive with the existing hydrocarbon economy. In the end, economics will make this decision, not engineers.

That's why I refer to the trillion dollar investment made in the wars. Had such investments been made into technology, the price/performance level achieved through development by this point would have been significantly higher.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems pretty vague. And many members seem unwilling to contribute much to this global intervention.

Separate issue....member contributions are different and quite unequal by definition.

All of this in the hands of an Iraqi government which could turn against the US at any time in the future.

Same as Germany, Japan, or Korea.

The energy density of petroleum is fine, nothing amazing though. It pales in comparison to the energy density of any nuclear technology.

Not on a cost and distribution basis for very diversified btu needs around the world. France fully embraced your idea, but still needs petroleum imports.

That's why I refer to the trillion dollar investment made in the wars. Had such investments been made into technology, the price/performance level achieved through development by this point would have been significantly higher.

Higher for sure, but not high enough to displace current infrastructure and legacy needs. The annual US defense budget without war supplementals is about $0.5 trillion per year.

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Dude..."In God we Trust" did not appear on US money until the 1860's....during the CIVIL WAR!

What part of America and wars do you not understand? The founding fathers first order of business was to kick your monarchy squarely in the ass. "Loyalists" fled to Canada. Don't come back!

FIRSTLY ...You are not fourteen and gobbling your grandmothers qualudes...and you do not have a doped up CALIFORNIAN dialect - Never calle me DUDE - dude.

Your answer is not complete- why did the herald appear to begin with and why put it on money..It did not say in money we trust but in goodness that is inheriant to all of man kind that God is trust worthy and the rest are not..It is an attempt to bring you up into a state of higher mindedness..can you at least give the old school approach that brought you greatness one more try?

[bush_cheney2004]

Your answer is not complete- why did the herald appear to begin with and why put it on money..It did not say in money we trust but in goodness that is inheriant to all of man kind that God is trust worthy and the rest are not..It is an attempt to bring you up into a state of higher mindedness..can you at least give the old school approach that brought you greatness one more try?

It dates back to the War of 1812...another war with you guys. Didn't become an official motto until 1956.

Americans always get busy with "God" whenever shit hits the fan.

[Moonlight Graham]

It has happened many times...I don't know why anyone considers Bush special in this regard.

Hell ya it's happened many times before. But the sheer scale of the # of lies in convincing support for a large-scale war is unprecedented. But i couldn't say Bush & co are the award winners for "war lies", LBJ & co. likely has them beat.

He did his job and led his nation to war in an effort to reduce a threat, real or perceived in the context of post 9/11 attacks.

His job isn't to convince the nation to go to war based on B.S. evidence. If he wants to go to war, then give his argument based on the real reasons, such as the ones you've mentioned. Saddam is a threat blah blah.

Your government lied to you yet again, and you took it up the arse and you don't even seem to care. The reason you don't care is that the means led to an end that you support. i hope the government arse-rape was worth it for ya.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hell ya it's happened many times before. But the sheer scale of the # of lies in convincing support for a large-scale war is unprecedented. But i couldn't say Bush & co are the award winners for "war lies", LBJ & co. likely has them beat.

That would be JFK and LBJ....or Truman, FDR, Wilson, McKinley, etc. The "lies" were challenged in real time, but Bush had a better story in the context of existing policy and perceived threat.

His job isn't to convince the nation to go to war based on B.S. evidence. If he wants to go to war, then give his argument based on the real reasons, such as the ones you've mentioned. Saddam is a threat blah blah.

He did...WMDs (also Clinton's contention) was just the sugar on top. There was sufficient uncertainty to make it credible; anybody who claims to have definitive proof otherwise without hindsight is just blowing smoke.

Your government lied to you yet again, and you took it up the arse and you don't even seem to care. The reason you don't care is that the means led to an end that you support. i hope the government arse-rape was worth it for ya.

What's your problem? Even if that were true it's not your concern....Canada can go back to invading Haiti instead.

[Moonlight Graham]

Wrong...the math included post 9/11 parameters, and sought to maintain the existing baseline while bringing Iraq's obsolete and bombed out infrastructure on line with US contractors over France and Russia.

How exactly do you know what parameters Cheney and co. used to calculate the cost/risk of the Iraq invasion? Did someone steal his diary or something?

Anyways, Cheney and the bunch aren't exactly deft at correct calculations. They goofed on the # of soldiers required to secure Iraq after invasion. They were clueless about the strength of the insurgency post-invasion (Mission Accomplished!). They had no exit strategy. They even botched the Afghanistan invasion and let many important targets, including Bin Laden, skip town.

Even if one tries to look at the invasion from a pure Realist perspective, most Realists were against the invasion and argued it would be detrimental to U.S. power/interests.

You also bring up the Japan/Germany comparison with regards to democracy in Iraq. As i've stated before, Iraq (and Afghanistan) are not Japan and Germany. The cultural differences between Muslim and Western countries are much more incompatible that Western vs post-war Germany/Japan. Christianity in Germany and Shinto/Buddhism in Japan vs Islam in Iraq. The Iranian Revolution is an interesting example of what Western regime change in Muslim countries can result in - not exactly hugs n kisses.

[bush_cheney2004]

How exactly do you know what parameters Cheney and co. used to calculate the cost/risk of the Iraq invasion? Did someone steal his diary or something?

Yes...the cost had already been calculated years before. Remember, the Saudis paid the lion's share of Gulf War 1...that wouldn't be the case this time around.

Anyways, Cheney and the bunch aren't exactly deft at correct calculations. They goofed on the # of soldiers required to secure Iraq after invasion. They were clueless about the strength of the insurgency post-invasion (Mission Accomplished!). They had no exit strategy. They even botched the Afghanistan invasion and let many important targets, including Bin Laden, skip town.

Sure..and the US Congress still paid the piper. Same thing happened during WW2....worked out OK.

Even if one tries to look at the invasion from a pure Realist perspective, most Realists were against the invasion and argued it would be detrimental to U.S. power/interests.

Some yes...some no....clearly the existing policy of containment and air attacks had much support. Realizing that sanctions were next to useless in obtaining the desired result, the Yanks and allies went marching in.

You also bring up the Japan/Germany comparison with regards to democracy in Iraq. As i've stated before, Iraq (and Afghanistan) are not Japan and Germany. The cultural differences between Muslim and Western countries are much more incompatible that Western vs post-war Germany/Japan. Christianity in Germany and Shinto/Buddhism in Japan vs Islam in Iraq. The Iranian Revolution is an interesting example of what Western regime change in Muslim countries can result in - not exactly hugs n kisses.

The USA enjoys good relations with several Arab / Muslim states, so your point is moot. The larger point is that the it had direct historical experience with "regime change" in other nations, either through war or destabilization. Iran was onside for years until 1979 as a proxy state in the region (Cold War).

[Born Free]

The USA enjoys good relations with several Arab / Muslim states, so your point is moot. The larger point is that the it had direct historical experience with "regime change" in other nations, either through war or destabilization. Iran was onside for years until 1979 as a proxy state in the region (Cold War).

..... there is nothing moot about your being in debt up to your proverbial assholes...

Edited April 18, 2010 by Born Free

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes...the cost had already been calculated years before. Remember, the Saudis paid the lion's share of Gulf War 1...that wouldn't be the case this time around.

Yes, but calculated wrongly. The admin vastly underestimated the power of nationalism in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the strength of the post-invasion insurgency. They thought they would go into Iraq, shock-and-awe them to hell, and proclaim "mission accomplished" and call it a day. I'm quite positive they didn't think the war would last longer than WWII and add all that extra cost.

A conservative estimate of the war costing 1 trillion could pay for all U.S. use for the next 250 years if you assume the U.S. continues to use 20 million barrels a year and the cost averages $200 a barrel over that time. These calculations aren't realistic of course, but the point still made: a trillion bucks can buy a lot stuff.

Did they factor in loss in global rep the U.S. would incur from their inaccurate claims, human rights abuses against prisoners in Abu Ghraib/Gitmo, & aggressive military use? Did they factor the political losses for their party, both in Congress and the fact that all their actions dealing with Iraq was a significant reason why the Repubs lost the '08 election?

Some yes...some no....clearly the existing policy of containment and air attacks had much support. Realizing that sanctions were next to useless in obtaining the desired result, the Yanks and allies went marching in.

Most realists were indeed against the Iraq invasion/war. Here's an op-ed in The New York Times from Sept. 2002 signed by 33 American scholars of international relations against the war, including a who's-who of leading realists such as Kenneth Waltz, John J Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, and Robert Jervis: WAR WITH IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTEREST. And this was even assuming that Iraq had WMD's and potential to acquire nukes! They also correctly assert/predict:

"- Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.

- Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.

- Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe."

PWNAGE!

Here's a great article by neorealist John J. Mearsheimer on US policy regarding the war: Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism. Here Morgenthau even asserts that most realists opposed the war: "...On the idealist strand of neo-conservative theory, the argument is even stronger that Morgenthau, like almost all contemporary realists, would have opposed the Iraq war."

Iraq was quite well contained pre-invasion. They took a swipe at Bush Sr and disobeyed some UN resolutions, but what security costs did they incur against the US from post-Gulf I to 2003? Ya they provided a threat, but a mostly imagined one not worth the war cost. The real security costs post-Gulf I came from al-Qaeda, and the Iraq War took resources away from Afghanistan & the real threat.

The USA enjoys good relations with several Arab / Muslim states, so your point is moot. The larger point is that the it had direct historical experience with "regime change" in other nations, either through war or destabilization. Iran was onside for years until 1979 as a proxy state in the region (Cold War).

Ya, they are friendly with a few Arab middle-eastern governments (but not Persian ones!), but how do the actual citizens feels? No region on earth is the US despised more than in the middle-east (minus Israel!). The US is friendly with the Saudi gov, but one of its citizens leads Al-Qaeda and orchestrated 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were also Saudi. The US also has "friendly" relations with the Pakistan gov, yet the ISI provides aid to the Taliban.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but calculated wrongly. The admin vastly underestimated the power of nationalism in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the strength of the post-invasion insurgency. They thought they would go into Iraq, shock-and-awe them to hell, and proclaim "mission accomplished" and call it a day. I'm quite positive they didn't think the war would last longer than WWII and add all that extra cost.

The war didn't last that long...secular conflict and insurgency did. The military outcome was never in doubt.

A conservative estimate of the war costing 1 trillion could pay for all U.S. use for the next 250 years if you assume the U.S. continues to use 20 million barrels a year and the cost averages $200 a barrel over that time. These calculations aren't realistic of course, but the point still made: a trillion bucks can buy a lot stuff.

Your calculus is too narrow....you have to include the secondary and tertiary costs on global US and allied interests. It's no coincidence that PMs Blair and Howard supported the invasion.

Did they factor in loss in global rep the U.S. would incur from their inaccurate claims, human rights abuses against prisoners in Abu Ghraib/Gitmo, & aggressive military use? Did they factor the political losses for their party, both in Congress and the fact that all their actions dealing with Iraq was a significant reason why the Repubs lost the '08 election?

Yet...the Republicans did quite well in 2004 (post invasion sans WMD), retaining control of Congress and the presidency. Aggressive military action was used in 1999 ostensibly to enforce "human rights"...Canada jumped all over that....you can have it both ways. The Republicans lost the election in 2008 for several reasons besides "Iraq"....there is more to the US domestic and foreign policy scene than "Iraq", beleive it or not.

Most realists were indeed against the Iraq invasion/war. Here's an op-ed in The New York Times from Sept.

"- Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.

Others supported the idea, including reluctant Canadian Mr. Michael Ignatieff:

I supported war as the least bad of the available options. Containment -- keeping Saddam Hussein in a box -- might have made war unnecessary, but the box had sprung a series of leaks. Hussein was evading sanctions, getting rich through illegal oil sales and, so I thought at the time, beginning to reconstitute the weapons programs that had been destroyed by United Nations inspectors. If he were acquiring weapons, he could be deterred from using them himself, but he might be able to transfer lethal technologies to undeterrable suicide bombers. Such a possibility might have been remote, but after 9/11 it seemed unwise to trifle with it. Still, I thought, force had to be a last resort. If Hussein had complied with the inspectors, I would not have supported an invasion, but the evidence, at least till March 2003, was that he was playing the same old games. Getting Hussein to stop these games depended on a credible threat of force, and the French, Russians and Chinese weren't ready to authorize military options. So that left disarmament through regime change. Where I live -- in liberal Massachusetts -- this was not a popular view.

Iraq was quite well contained pre-invasion. They took a swipe at Bush Sr and disobeyed some UN resolutions, but what security costs did they incur against the US from post-Gulf I to 2003? Ya they provided a threat, but a mostly imagined one not worth the war cost. The real security costs post-Gulf I came from al-Qaeda, and the Iraq War took resources away from Afghanistan & the real threat.

Easy for you to say from Canada, with no major role or cost going back to Gulf War 1. Not only do you propose to decide where another nation should allocate resources, you do so without equal measure for your own.

Ya, they are friendly with a few Arab middle-eastern governments (but not Persian ones!), but how do the actual citizens feels? No region on earth is the US despised more than in the middle-east (minus Israel!). The US is friendly with the Saudi gov, but one of its citizens leads Al-Qaeda and orchestrated 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were also Saudi. The US also has "friendly" relations with the Pakistan gov, yet the ISI provides aid to the Taliban.

The same could be said for Canada (e.g. Millennium Bomber)....it's not that simple minded. Turkey is a mostly Muslim state and NATO partner, and provides bases and overflights for US forces. Al Qaeda's timeline pre-dates Bush by many years.

[Born Free]

Ya, they are friendly with a few Arab middle-eastern governments (but not Persian ones!), but how do the actual citizens feels? No region on earth is the US despised more than in the middle-east (minus Israel!). The US is friendly with the Saudi gov, but one of its citizens leads Al-Qaeda and orchestrated 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were also Saudi. The US also has "friendly" relations with the Pakistan gov, yet the ISI provides aid to the Taliban.

....good post.

[Guest American Woman]

Ya, they are friendly with a few Arab middle-eastern governments (but not Persian ones!), but how do the actual citizens feels? No region on earth is the US despised more than in the middle-east (minus Israel!).

If you think they feel any differently about Canada/Canadians, guess again. If they do, it's only because they believe Canada in it's "tolerance" will look the other way when their beliefs go against Canadian/Democratic principles. Look at how some of the ME immigrants have talked about Canada, and those are people who Canada took in. If you honestly believe they actually think higher of Canadian infidels than they do American infidels, you are either naive or living in a dream world -- or possibly both.

It seems to me as if some Canadians have convinced themselves that they are loved worldwide. That everyone respects Canadians. Even Harper said at the G20 summit last year that Canada is the one country in the room that everybody in the room would like to be. What an illusion.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It seems to me as if some Canadians have convinced themselves that they are loved worldwide. That everyone respects Canadians. Even Harper said at the G20 summit last year that Canada is the one country in the room that everybody in the room would like to be. What an illusion.

It is very important to the collective Canadian psyche that this be true.....even when it's not. That is where the backpack flag urban myth comes from, even while some eschew "nationalism". Losing worldly love because of PM Harper's policies is never to be confused with losing worldly love because of the Somalia affair, East Timor, Haiti, or mining abuses around the world.

[Smallc]

It seems to me as if some Canadians have convinced themselves that they are loved worldwide. That everyone respects Canadians. Even Harper said at the G20 summit last year that Canada is the one country in the room that everybody in the room would like to be. What an illusion.

I'm not sure you're taking that in context. He was specifically referring to the fiscal health of this country in comparison to almost all other G20 countries.