Republicans abandon interest in defence

[eyeball]

And here I thought it would apply to people. Apparently, though, only some people can react emotionally and it's totally understandable - as others can't. Talk about a blatant bias.

That not apparent to me at all, every human feels emotions and as I understand it there's probably something medically wrong with people who don't.

As for it - blowback - I can only loosely assume we're on the same page as to what the term means. To the guys flying the planes on 9/11 for example the term probably meant vengeance which is more or less what most people think.

Blowback is unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

That's what I loosely assumed you meant but I realize the little quotation marks you put around blowback is your emotional response that could mean just about anything you want it to mean. It's how you roll.

What italicizing people does for you is anyone's guess.

[Guest American Woman]

Agreed..the only thing Canada got "dragged into" for the Iraq War #2 was lucrative oil services contracts after the invasion was over.

Quite frankly, if I thought my country didn't act out of its own accord, that it was forced into action that it didn't wish to partake in by another, I would be quite concerned and upset, rather than seeing it as a 'get out of jail free' card. I would want my country to get a backbone.

[eyeball]

Quite frankly, if I thought my country didn't act out of its own accord, that it was forced into action that it didn't wish to partake in by another, I would be quite concerned and upset, rather than seeing it as a 'get out of jail free' card. I would want my country to get a backbone.

What about the argument that the Soviet Union forced your government to prop up dictators?

Face it, your country is a jellyfish.

[Guest American Woman]

What about the argument that the Soviet Union forced your government to prop up dictators?

Face it, your country is a jellyfish.

Whose claim is that? The U.S. did what it felt it had to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

Quite frankly, if I thought my country didn't act out of its own accord, that it was forced into action that it didn't wish to partake in by another, I would be quite concerned and upset, rather than seeing it as a 'get out of jail free' card. I would want my country to get a backbone.

We already know what Canada is when it comes to foreign policy, the only question is the price. That some Canadians refuse to take responsibility for complicity "after WW2" ( a favorite cop out) is plain to see. I figure it's just part of the whole identity neurosis that is defined as "not American" while doing pretty much the same things.

[eyeball]

Whose claim is that? The U.S. did what it felt it had to do.

Felt what, an emotion?

If so you must mean the people, not the government because that would be silly. Governments are just mindless things that get dragged and pushed into things. In a democracy that would make the people doing the dragging and pushing responsible for it's actions, correct?

[Guest American Woman]

Felt what, an emotion?

If so you must mean the people, not the government because that would be silly. Governments are just mindless things that get dragged and pushed into things. In a democracy that would make the people doing the dragging and pushing responsible for it's actions, correct?

Wrong. The government consists of people. You think they are somehow immune to "emotion?" But in regards to the issue, they felt a need. Good to see, though, that you believe your government does just what "the people" of Canada want it to do rather than act in their own best interests and/or what they believe is best for the country.

[Guest American Woman]

We already know what Canada is when it comes to foreign policy, the only question is the price. That some Canadians refuse to take responsibility for complicity "after WW2" ( a favorite cop out) is plain to see. I figure it's just part of the whole identity neurosis that is defined as "not American" while doing pretty much the same things.

Agreed. It's part of the 'we are good!!' vs 'evil U.S.' that some seem so desperate to believe - even going so far as to try to portray Canada as nothing more than a jellyfish (as if that's somehow more admirable).

[eyeball]

Wrong. The government consists of people.

So is it wrong or correct to say people in democracies are responsible for their government's actions?

[GostHacked]

Those machines defend people.

Defense happens at home. Predator drones over Pakistan and Afghanistan are offensive. Anything used in a foreign country to me should be classified as offensive.

[Guest Derek L]

Defense happens at home. Predator drones over Pakistan and Afghanistan are offensive. Anything used in a foreign country to me should be classified as offensive.

So you would rather “fight terrorists” within the confines of your own home like the Israelis? Seems to me, Iraq and Afghanistan became magnets for radical Islamists…….I’d much prefer them blowing themselves up over there then over here…

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed. It's part of the 'we are good!!' vs 'evil U.S.' that some seem so desperate to believe - even going so far as to try to portray Canada as nothing more than a jellyfish (as if that's somehow more admirable).

Yes..what a strange comparison. It is unclear to me how the U.S. would get all these "jellyfish" to do American bidding. Cheaper cigarettes?

[Shady]

At first when I read the OP, I thought it must be something out of The Onion.

Republicans just raised taxes on the top rate on January 1st. Completely opposite of the OPs inaccurate claim of "cutting them as far as possible"

The OP also fasley claims that defense spending is being "slashed to the bone." Nothing can be further from the truth. Despite the sequestration cuts, the defense budget is still increasing. The sequestration simply slows the rate of the increase. Apparently the OP is unaware of that fact, as well as many others it seems.

The Pentagon budget is bloated, and a slowing of the rate of it's increase more than appropriate, it's necessary. But it hardly equates to "mothingballing warships." That assertion is laughable, as well as complete and utter nonsense.

Yes, since January, Republicans have agreed to cut defense spending, and increase taxes on the rich. They seem to be the only adult party left in Washington D.C these days. The other party acts like Santa Claus, pretending there aren't record deficits, pretending there isn't record debt, and offering up as many new and expanding "government goodies" as fast as their statist minds can think of them.

On a side note, it must be nice for the OP to sit on his comfy couch, and ask other people to pony up more and more tax money to police the world, and provide security that he benefits from, without having to contribute a penny himself.

[ReeferMadness]

Oh, that's easy. Canada made billions of dollars during the Vietnam War exporting war materials like defoilants (Agent Orange), napalm,

aircraft parts, copper, brass, plate armour, ammunition, explosives, etc. to the USA. Canada has benefited from U.S. satellites (e.g. GPS, weather, and communications) and launch services since the early days of the space program, having no domestic capability to put payloads or Canadians into orbit. Canada has been able to purchase military and civilian aircraft developed from American programs at great savings for design and development. Canada has been able to spend far less on domestic and NATO commitments in part because of U.S. defense collaborations. Computers and information technology developed from U.S. defense contracts / R & D continue to aid Canada, including this very MLW forum, hosted in Texas. More than three quarters of Canada's exports flow easily to the great war monger to the south.

So, it's all about money, then is that your view? Sell the napalm and pay no attention to the kids who burnt to death in Asia? Does that nicely sum up your views??

If the military industry didn't exist, we'd be better off, not worse. The people who do research into ways of killing people have skills that could be better used for other purposes. You may think that by smearing Canada's participation in your dirtydeeds, it makes us all the same.

It doesn't.

[ReeferMadness]

The U.S. didn't start your empire's biggest wars (WW1 & WW2), but it sure as hell finished them.

I can see how you would have that view if your knowledge of history is based on John Wayne movies. A more accurate view would be that the US sat back and profited from the wars until the main participants had exhausted themselves. Then they stepped in to shift the balance and ride on the backs of the millions already dead to victory. Without the world wars, the US would not have been the pre-eminent world power in the latter half of the 20th century. Further comments will be directly related to WWII because it is more recent and I've read more about it.

In WWII, the the real European theatre was in the USSR. You can say what you want about them and Stalin. The fact is that they bled the Russians dry at a cost of 20+ million of their own. They fought because they had nowhere to go. The Americans sat back and gave them just enough support to keep them from collapsing. If Hitler had honoured the pact with Stalin and the panzer divisions that were destroyed in the east were deployed in the west, would the Americans have invaded? I don't see it. Allied tanks at the time were no match for panzers. If we had to face them in the numbers that the Soviets did, we'd have been in big trouble. By time d-day finally rolled around, Germany was already beaten. It was a mad race, not to destroy Germany (which was already in full retreat in the east) but to occupy Western Europe before the Soviets did.

[ReeferMadness]

Shouldn’t that read neighbours? I for one would rather live next to the United States then the former Soviet Union or Communist China…………But I guess you have a point, I wouldn’t have wanted to be Hungarian or Korean in the 50s……..Good thing our “over militarized” neighbour never invaded us…

They've never had a reason to. We do mostly what they want us to and they have significant investments here. Why ruin a good thing?

Things can change, though.

And we got dragged into “pointless wars”? Really? Did the Americans “force us”? If the Americans exert so much influence over us, perhaps we should “over militarize” ourselves….

So we can be in debt the way they are? No thanks.

[bush_cheney2004]

So, it's all about money, then is that your view? Sell the napalm and pay no attention to the kids who burnt to death in Asia? Does that nicely sum up your views??

Not just my views...but Canada's collective (majority) view as well based on trade. Did I mention uranium, yellow cake, or DU ?

If the military industry didn't exist, we'd be better off, not worse. The people who do research into ways of killing people have skills that could be better used for other purposes. You may think that by smearing Canada's participation in your dirtydeeds, it makes us all the same.

It doesn't.

What you say as a Canadian matters far less than what your country has done and continues to do. I know it is important for you to pretend otherwise, but the record is quite clear. And it's not just the military.....the other day Greeks were protesting yet another Canadian mining operation (Eldorado) for gold and profit at the expense of poor Mother Earth. Some Canadians get it.....others pretend to be smugly superior.

[ReeferMadness]

Whose claim is that? The U.S. did what it felt it had to do.

And every time that happens, people, mostly poor, mostly dark-skinned die in huge numbers. But that's OK, because it's the US doing "what it felt it had to do"???

BTW, the 911 perpetrators were also doing what they felt they had to do. Bad things happen when people feel they are entitled to do what they think they have to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can see how you would have that view if your knowledge of history is based on John Wayne movies. A more accurate view would be that the US sat back and profited from the wars until the main participants had exhausted themselves.

More Americans died during WW1 than did Canadians, despite having joined the war "late". Lots more Americans died during WW2 as well, especially in the Pacific where Canada was largely absent. Go read about that.

You clearly sidestepped the larger point of British Empire and Commonwealth nations complicity in thrusting the world into the two largest conflagrations the world has ever known. Hitler attacked Poland, not the U.K. or Canada. The Americans clearly did not start your royal wars.

In WWII, the the real European theatre was in the USSR. You can say what you want about them and Stalin. The fact is that they bled the Russians dry at a cost of 20+ million of their own. They fought because they had nowhere to go. The Americans sat back and gave them just enough support to keep them from collapsing.

I think you mean they 'bled the Germans dry'. The Americans provided the war materials and steel processes to make this possible. It is well documented. America gets to write history any way it wishes, same as Canada.

Edited March 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

And every time that happens, people, mostly poor, mostly dark-skinned die in huge numbers. But that's OK, because it's the US doing "what it felt it had to do"???

BTW, the 911 perpetrators were also doing what they felt they had to do. Bad things happen when people feel they are entitled to do what they think they have to do.

My comment was in response to the idea that Americans claim that the Soviet Union "forced" the U.S. to do it - the way so many Canadians claim Canada only does what it does because "the U.S. forced it to." I'm saying the U.S. wasn't "forced" to do anything but did what it thought it had to do - just as Canada does what it feels it has to do in its best interest.

[bush_cheney2004]

My comment was in response to the idea that Americans claim that the Soviet Union "forced" the U.S. to do it - the way so many Canadians claim Canada only does what it does because "the U.S. forced it to." I'm saying the U.S. wasn't "forced" to do anything but did what it thought it had to do - just as Canada does what it feels it has to do in its best interest.

Yes...this is a lesson you have taught before. Canada should own domestic and foreign policy decisions made in self interest instead of running from them..."since the end of WW2". Giggle...giggle.

[Guest Derek L]

They've never had a reason to. We do mostly what they want us to and they have significant investments here. Why ruin a good thing?

Things can change, though.

So wouldn’t our heavily militarized neighbour, a neighbour that invests in our country and aides us significantly in the defence of our sovereignty, be deemed an asset?

So we can be in debt the way they are? No thanks.

Yet you chide them for exerting influence over us………….How does a country deny said influential powers? Should we whore ourselves out further to the Chinese or the Russians?

[ReeferMadness]

More Americans died during WW1 than did Canadians, despite having joined the war "late". Lots more Americans died during WW2 as well, especially in the Pacific where Canada was largely absent. Go read about that.

As a proportion of population, more Canadians died in WWII than Americans. However, I wasn't talking about Canadians when I referred to the main participants. WWII was largely a war of attrition between Germany and the USSR. If the Soviet Union hadn't bled the Germans, I don't believe for a moment that there would have been landings on Normandy. Your great tales of valour were only possible because of the sacrifices of you enemies, the Soviets.

You clearly sidestepped the larger point of British Empire and Commonwealth nations complicity in thrusting the world into the two largest conflagrations the world has ever known. Hitler attacked Poland, not the U.K. or Canada. The Americans clearly did not start your royal wars.

You want to talk about complicity? Some of Hitler's most ardent admirers were American industrialists (Henry Ford, Thomas Watson among them). Without IBM support, the holocaust would not have been possible in its scale.

[ReeferMadness]

My comment was in response to the idea that Americans claim that the Soviet Union "forced" the U.S. to do it - the way so many Canadians claim Canada only does what it does because "the U.S. forced it to." I'm saying the U.S. wasn't "forced" to do anything but did what it thought it had to do - just as Canada does what it feels it has to do in its best interest.

And when the USA goes out and invades some other country because "it thinks it has to", how is it being morally superior to terrorists who launch an attack on the WTC because they think they have to?

[ReeferMadness]

So wouldn’t our heavily militarized neighbour, a neighbour that invests in our country and aides us significantly in the defence of our sovereignty, be deemed an asset?

Tell me about a time they aided us in our defence. No, I don't consider our proximity to the world's most heavily armed country an asset.

Yet you chide them for exerting influence over us………….How does a country deny said influential powers? Should we whore ourselves out further to the Chinese or the Russians?

I haven't chided anyone - I've stated the facts. You were claiming that they were defending us. I'm simply pointing out they were acting only in their own best interest. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, being next to them has not made us safer. In a nuclear exchange with Russia, both sides would be lobbing missiles over our heads. Does that make you feel safer?? Since most of our large cities are in proximity of the southern border, we would suffer a lot of "collateral damage". Also due to our proximity, terrorists come to us simply to try to get to them.

In answer to your question, we don't need to whore ourselves to anyone. In fact, we could simply grow a backbone and stop whoring ourselves to the US. Chretien managed it when he declined to take part in a stupid, illegal invasion of Iraq. Luckily, Chairman Harper hadn't assumed his virtual dictatorship yet.