Canada's cold shoulder to U.S.

[caesar]

Actually, I kind of enjoyed the pictures. Those fellows were there because they were bad. They were not there because they were in the Iraq military, but because they were bad guys. Maybe a bomber or two. I really liked the naked group hug. They needed a little bonding time. Is that the torturing you refer to?

You are a sicko; there is no evidence that those being tortured are guilty of ANYTHING. I hope you enjoy the beheading of innocent American contractors too. That is violence being returned becasue of American torture.

Those young soldiers are being presecuted for these action as scapegoats for their superior officers who ordered the torture. If you are proud of that; you are really sick and ignorant.

[Argus]

Canadians complain that America did not enter the war with some justification. Britain and Canada bore the brunt of the cost, economic and personal, in that war to save democracy.

America did not enter the war earlier because there was too large a community of German sympathizers and the government need an excuse to do so.

Uhmmmmmmm.... what can I say. You know nothing about history seems far too obvious. In fact, if you want to know why the U.S. took a long time to enter the war you need only look in the mirror. The US was not full of "German sympathisers" but rather full of people like, well, liberal Canadians, people who despised war and thought that nothing was worth fighting for, refused to pay for a real military, wanted nothing to do with other people's fights, nothing to do with violence or militarism. No matter what. They were insular people who cared nothing and knew nothing about what was going on beyond their borders.

It should be remembered in this that America exists today because Britain protected it against the threats of the European powers. The Monroe doctrine was enforced by the British navy since America was far too weak to withstand attack by the major European powers

This is nonsense, you know. It is true that the British navy quite helpful as allies to the Americans in "enforcing" the "monroe doctrine" but this was entirely out of self-interest. The British did not want their old enemies the French to interfere in latin america, where the British had great hopes of building their trade markets higher. But the Americans were quite able to do it alone if they had to. Cooperation with the British obviated the need to build their own large navy.

.The complaint about America going to war now is that the war is totally unjustified and amounts to butchery of Iraquis who do not have the means to properly defend themselves.

No it's not. It's anti-miiltarism, a kind of smug, Canadian concept and belief that anyone who uses military force is distinctly inferior to us, for we sit very high on a moral plateau, never needing to use military force. Of course, that isn't so much out of choice as the fact we have no real international interests, but hey, no need to mention that, right? No, your "concern" for Iraqis is a touch amusing given I doubt you ever expressed a jot of concern for the thousands dying in Sadaam's torture chambers every year, doubt you ever even thought about them either.

What antagonism comes out of Canada is a revulsion against the barbaric behaviour of the America administration after the WTC. When your government blamed Canada for allowing the terrorists into the USA -

Point of order, yer honour, but they never did any such thing. And Canada's "revulsion" is, as I said, because the US actually did something, you know, military, rather than making pompous speeches or writing stern letters. Canadians who have never known any kind of threat feel oddly justified in thinking themselves morally superior to those who must react to real threats. I don't know why that would be other than smug, dumb arogance, but it seems to be the case.

[ft.niagara]

It probably will distress you to hear this; but overall, the interests of the US and that of Canada are virtually identical. So if we support the U.S. on the world stage it is not so much being "pro american" but simply doing what is in our own best interests. Most Canadians know little or nothing about the world at large, however, the produce of a distinctly inferior education system which lavishes massive amounts of money on teachers and educational experts and turns out students who can neither read, nor write, nor count, and who know nothing about the world or its history.-Argus

I have posted mostly on www.bearpit.net. There is a fellow there who calls himself KeepCanadaFree. He is of course liberal, and has the worst language skills, spelling on down. I asked him why he did not post on a canadian forum and he said that the RCMP monitored the canadian boards and he wanted one not monitored. You can go there, and check out his past posts if anyone is interested.

[Argus]

Canada and the Olympics

This is somewhat off topic but it is from Fox which I know you guys do not get up there (because of content laws) comparing Canada with Australia in the olympics. Canada has 30 mil, and Australia 20 mil.

Yes, FOX demonstrates again why no real conservative - as I consider myself to be - bothers to defend them. They're sloppy reporting combined with a political zealotry I find more than a little contemptable. Gee, Australia does better at the summer olympics than Canada? Duhh, it surely can't have anything to do with their moderate weather, so it must be because... because... Canada is full of socialists!

Why anyone would attach any importance to the olympics is beyond me. The winners aren't amateurs so much as drugged up overtrained animals who spend five or six hours a day their entire lives practicing their "sport". Spare me.

[Argus]

You obviously don't know much about the Monroe doctrine. It was proclaimed in 1823 when the USA could not have defended itself against any major European power.

It managed to defend itself against the British fairly well, actually. And given America's industrial capacity and population in the early 1800s it could certainly have built up a substantial navy if it had wanted to.

"Saddam was asked to leave nicely." That is Bushean in its arrogance. Who is George Bush to ask the head of another country to leave because he is in the way

And who was Saddam? Why are you defending the "right" of a brutal, murdering thug who seized power by murdering the previous government to hang on to power? When do people like Saddam get these "rights" you so ardently defend? The moment their coup succeedes? They then must be respected as the "legitimate" ruler? Even if they only stay in power by butchering anyone who protests?

The whole world, now, is asking George nicely to leave and to leave the world to restore peace.

As i said, there is massive ignorance in the world. And Canadians are no exception. No doubt many Canadians like you actually believe that if someone waved a magic wand and the US and all its troops instantly vacated Iraq there would be peace and brotherhood and contentment. Those who actually have some idea what they're talking about seem to be more convinced that a the US leaving would cause massive bloodletting and civil war, with possibly millions of deaths. That seems to not concern you, for some reason. Why is that?

The US is not trying to "innoculate" Iraq and bring it democracy. It is trying to impose what is to that country an alien system in its own strategic and economic interest.

Yes, democracy. Do you think Iraqis are too ignorant to have democratic institutions? Are you saying that Iraqis are doomed to live under nothing but brutal dictatorship forever? And both we and they should be happy with that, and outraged at anyone trying to change it? You seem to be.

As for the UN. Any organization which names Libyan leader Moamar Ghaddafi as the head of its human rights agency deserves nothing but contempt.

[Argus]

Grow up Niagra. Think before you speak. You have little understanding of common sense. It is people like you that let tyrants like Bush bring mayhem to the world. Saddam was a mouthy jerk but it is Bush who is dangerous to world peace.

Saddam was a mouthy jerk, huh? I guess by that standard Paul Bernardo was rude to women.

[Argus]

You, my dear are the one with blinders on.  I prefer our civil Canadian attitude over the American way of torturing helpless prisoners.

Actually, the last time we were involved in anything even remotely approaching war we did in fact torture helpless prisoners, and beat one to death.

Oh, you didn't want to hear about that, did you?

[Argus]

You, my dear are the one with blinders on.  I prefer our civil Canadian attitude over the American way of torturing helpless prisoners.

Actually, I kind of enjoyed the pictures. Those fellows were there because they were bad. They were not there because they were in the Iraq military, but because they were bad guys. Maybe a bomber or two. I really liked the naked group hug.

The pictures of naked guys in a pile were a lot less revolting than the picture of that Somalian guy with his face all swollen and bloody, his neck being held by a wooden bar, his hands tied up - before Canadian soldiers finished beating him to death.

[Argus]

Actually, I kind of enjoyed the pictures. Those fellows were there because they were bad. They were not there because they were in the Iraq military, but because they were bad guys. Maybe a bomber or two. I really liked the naked group hug. They needed a little bonding time. Is that the torturing you refer to?

You are a sicko; there is no evidence that those being tortured are guilty of ANYTHING.

You actually have no knowledge, not a clue about who these people were or why they were there. This was, I understand, a special cell block in that prison used for the people who were considered the worst of the prisoners there. I suggest to you that there certainly WAS a reason they were in that cell block.

I hope you enjoy the beheading of innocent American contractors too.  That is violence being returned becasue of American torture. 

No, that's violence being perpetarted on the innocent; Americans, Egyptians, Italians, Somalians, Lebanese, Turks, whoever, by ignorant, illiterate religious fanatics who know nothing but hate and violence.

By the way, if you want to equate it with the limited American misbehaviour, tell me why the Americans, who can expect torture and death if they are captured by the enemy, should now treat their enemy prisoners with respect and honour.

[ft.niagara]

Thought you would enjoy a taste of KeepCanadaFree, this posted on 15 Sept 2004, his english isn't bad here though:

'm from toronto, just as a mental note for ya'l.

The Toronto Sun is owned by a hard core Jewish fellow.

And i'm not talking about heavily religous i'm talking *kill all muslims/arabs, jews should rule the world*... Jewish!

Everyhting in that news paper should be understood as slanderous and false with undermining motives

Onlything good that ever comes out of tat paper s the Sunshine girl!

-----------------------

Interesting view of a liberal Canadian.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

tell me why the Americans, who can expect torture and death if they are captured by the enemy, should now treat their enemy prisoners with respect and honour

(Perhaps not honour, but...Because it is:

1. the moral High Ground (Which the US claims it is acting upon)

2. Required by the Geneva convention(one side not respecting it does not give carte blanche to the other)

3. Once a 'soldier' is captured, the war for them is over. Torturing and killing captives is henious, no doubt, but one should never find one's self in a position of trying to 'justify' it. It just shouldn't be done.

[ft.niagara]

You are a sicko; there is no evidence that those being tortured are guilty of ANYTHING.  I hope you enjoy the beheading of innocent American contractors too.  That is violence being returned becasue of American torture. 

Those young soldiers are being presecuted for these action as scapegoats for their superior officers who ordered the torture.  If you are proud of that; you are really sick and ignorant.

I am trying to be "nice" because this is a canadian forum, but how do you know there was no evidence of their being guilty of ANYTHING? Those nasty Americans put them there because they did not like the way the combed their hair. Oh, and the group hug got us here:

Beheading

I guess since you can call me sick and ignorant, I am allowed to call you healthy and smart. Got to be careful of those Canadian content laws, eh.

[Guest eureka]

Argus, you surprise me. Are you sure that you are a Canadian? I had thought of you as one who held to a strange side of politics but who, fundamentally, was not ignorant of the world and of history. Your responses to me show that I misjudged you. You are as ignorant as the world you claim to have massive ignorance.

In the first place, ot does not distress me at all that our interests are similar to those of the USA. That is not a reason for you to support the subjugation of our interests to their's. Continentalism is not, and never was, in Canada's interest.

There is not the slightest doubt that Canada is indeed maturing - and its citizens showing a sophistication and understanding that has not reached you. The people have made it clear to the government that it will not tolerate the drifting to integration with the USA that certain political and business interests have been striving for. Or do you not understand election results? Canadian nationalism. searching for meaning ever since WWI has come of age and Canada's leaders are being dragged along.

The final lesson for Canadians has been the Iraq debacle.

Your knowledge of history is proving thin. In 1823, Monroe had no hope of resisting any major power. Yoy talk of American success against Britain earlier. You seem to be unaware that the success was obtained only with outside help and when Britain was too preoccupied with war against European powers in other theatres. Let's not be silly about this. America would have been little more than an irritant on its own. It was not until the late 19th. century, following massive immigration and British investment that America achieved anything close to parity with Britain.

In WWII, it was the pro-German sentiment that delayed America's entry into the war. Pacificism and anti-militarism had nothing to do with it: isolationism did have a part. Have you never read of the many exchanges between Churchill and Roosevelt and the covert aid given to Britain? Aid that could not be openly acknowledged because of the possible backlash from anti-British elements. It has become common knowledge that Roosevelt need an overt anti-American action by the Axis to justify America's entry. Knowledge that seems to have escaped you.

Where do I defend the "Right of Saddam to hang onto power" in Iraq? That is for the Iraqi people to decide or for an empowered United Nations. It is not for George Bush and his cronies any more than it was for other American administrations to do the same in Latin and Central America.

There is no possible defense of American unilateralism. It is illegal, immoral and based on lies.It always has been in these situations. Their actions in Iraq have been brutal and bloodthirsty. Tens of thousands of Iraquis have died to sate Bush's vampirism: thousands of Americans have died or will die and tens of thousands will be maimed. Terorism has been aggravated and terrorists created.

Please leave off the fairy tale suggestions about my beliefs and concerns. I have not suggested anywhere that the US should leave Iraq now. They cannot and probably will not be able to for another generation. As with Afghanistan. They have sown the wind.

This adventure in Iraq is not about bringing demicracy and has nevr been that. It was never more than the attempt to install a pliant and compliant regime there. The idea that it is about democracy is merely a fall back lie when every other lie has been exposed.

Iraqis are certainly not too ignorant to have democratic institutions. Neither are they doomed to forever live under "brutal dictatorship." But, do they want what you think of as democratic institutions? They have a culture and tradition that is antipathetic to what we think of as democracy. They have the inalienable right to decide for themselves what path they will follow. You have no right to suggest that they must renounce their religious observance and social traditions to follow your beliefs.

As for the UN Human Rights body, I think you should get off that hobbyhorse. It is a huge step forward in world affairs when a Libyan can be the head of that sub sector of the UN. It is an indication that Libya is on the way to becoming what you think Iraq should be - or is finding a balance in its traditions that allows respect for Rights as the rest of the world views them.

Finally, so that you not continue you foolish slurs that I am a "Leftist" and anti-militarist - as if there was such an identification, I have seen war and been involved. I don't like it one bit but have never even thought of not supporting just actions.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ft.niagra,

The Toronto Sun is owned by a hard core Jewish fellow.

While many would argue that saying such a thing is anti-semetic, (Wierd, semite means Arabic, or middle-eastern) Izzy Asper said he would not allow any condemnation of the actions of Israel to be printed in his papers. Ergo, he is openly saying he taints the news and views of the readers, for good or bad.

[ft.niagara]

Dear ft.niagra,

The Toronto Sun is owned by a hard core Jewish fellow.

While many would argue that saying such a thing is anti-semetic, (Wierd, semite means Arabic, or middle-eastern) Izzy Asper said he would not allow any condemnation of the actions of Israel to be printed in his papers. Ergo, he is openly saying he taints the news and views of the readers, for good or bad.

Antisemetic is commonly thought to be antijewish, but yes it could be thought as antiarab.

I was just quoting someone else. I get the Buffalo News, and Warren Buffet owns it. It is liberal based, and so is Buffet.

I would think that the newspaper should reflect the views of its owner, who in turn hires the editors on down. I am more surprised when the paper does not reflect what I would have anticipated the best interest of the owner to be.

-------------------------------------------

I have a suggestion to the Israel problem: move the jews to some underpopulated area in Africa and set up their homeland there. It may not be biblical, but it is more practical. Everything else is like trying to fit a round cork into a square hole. They could buy the Sudan and colonize it and make it bloom.

[ft.niagara]

From what I have seen; this more aptly applies to the USA.  Everytime I watch any thing  on tv; they cannot even use proper grammar.  They do not know anything about their nearest neighbout Canada, either

Hey Caesar,

Is the capitol of Canada Toronto, or Montreal?

Just wondering.

ft.niagara

[ft.niagara]

There is no possible defense of American unilateralism. It is illegal, immoral and based on lies.It always has been in these situations. Their actions in Iraq have been brutal and bloodthirsty. Tens of thousands of Iraquis have died to sate Bush's vampirism: thousands of Americans have died or will die and tens of thousands will be maimed. Terorism has been aggravated and terrorists created.-Eureka

If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs,

or

If you want to get rid of the mosquitos, you have to drain the swamp.

[Argus]

Argus, you surprise me. Are you sure that you are a Canadian? I had thought of you as one who held to a strange side of politics but who, fundamentally, was not ignorant of the world and of history. Your responses to me show that I misjudged you. You are as ignorant as the world you claim to have massive ignorance.

Yeah, sure, okay kid. Sorry. It comes from reading and talking to people, and travel. I just can't match the depths and breadth of the knowledge you've gotten on anarchist web sites.

There is not the slightest doubt that Canada is indeed maturing - and its citizens showing a sophistication and understanding that has not reached you.

Yeah, well, sorry. Once again it comes from that terrible habit of mine of "reading". You ever tried it? Tell me, how many books are in your house right now? Do you have a library card? When was the last time you bought a non-fiction book?

Your knowledge of history is proving thin. In 1823, Monroe had no hope of resisting any major power.

Why not? US power was limited only by the effort they put into it. Projecting power into America from Europe was a difficult objective given the distances involved. There never were more than a few nations who ever had much of a blue water navy. Basically, the Dutch, British, French, Portugese and Spanish. The American population in 1820 was comparable to that of Spain, and greater than that of the Dutch or Portugese. Could they have fought off the French? Hard to say. The French never did have a terribly competent navy.

In WWII, it was the pro-German sentiment that delayed America's entry into the war. Pacificism and anti-militarism had nothing to do with it: isolationism did have a part. Have you never read of the many exchanges between Churchill and Roosevelt and the covert aid given to Britain?

Yes, I know all about it. But you have it reversed. The isolationism and pacifism were what kept the US out of the war, not pro-German sentiment. The US never had much sentiment for the Germans. Why on Earth do you imagine they would?

Where do I defend the "Right of Saddam to hang onto power" in Iraq? That is for the Iraqi people to decide

Do I see weasel words here that say "Hey, not my problem!"? For the Iraqi people to decide? The brutalized Iraqi people opressed by secret police, torture and murder? If me and a few friends pick up some guns and take over your neighborhood will you agree our rule is legitimate and warn the cops off by saying "It's up to us to decide"?

There is no possible defense of American unilateralism. It is illegal, immoral and based on lies.

On the contrary, there is no defence for your apparent belief that brutal, illegitimate governments the world over have some kind of sanctified legal status so long as they can brutally repress the people they have control over. And there is no moral defence to your demanding other nations not interfere with their "right" to repress their people.

It always has been in these situations. Their actions in Iraq have been brutal and bloodthirsty. Tens of thousands of Iraquis have died to sate Bush's vampirism:

Now you just sound like a raving, sputtering lunatic.

As for the UN Human Rights body, I think you should get off that hobbyhorse. It is a huge step forward in world affairs when a Libyan can be the head of that sub sector of the UN. It is an indication that Libya is on the way to becoming what you think Iraq should be - or is finding a balance in its traditions that allows respect for Rights as the rest of the world views them.

What utter nonsense! As if Libya has improved its human rights record! As if Gaddaffy's hands don't drip blood. As if he suddenly has found a deep respect for human rights! What are you on anyway!?

[caesar]

I am trying to be "nice" because this is a canadian forum, but how do you know there was no evidence of their being guilty of ANYTHING? Those nasty Americans put them there because they did not like the way the combed their hair. Oh, and the group hug got us here:

If your remarks are what you consider nice; I would hate to hear how you really feel. The prisoners are being tortured in many prisons including the one in Cuba; many have since been released as there was NO evidence.

Those Americans rounded them up out of fear; many were in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Not all are innocent of defending their country from a foreign invasion; but many are.

[Argus]

Dear ft.niagra,

The Toronto Sun is owned by a hard core Jewish fellow.

While many would argue that saying such a thing is anti-semetic, (Wierd, semite means Arabic, or middle-eastern) Izzy Asper said he would not allow any condemnation of the actions of Israel to be printed in his papers. Ergo, he is openly saying he taints the news and views of the readers, for good or bad.

Do you have a quote from Asper saying he wouldn't allow any criticism of Israel in his newspapers?

Oh, and btw, for both of you, the Aspers do not own the Sun chain of newspapers.

[Argus]

I have a suggestion to the Israel problem: move the jews to some underpopulated area in Africa and set up their homeland there. It may not be biblical, but it is more practical. Everything else is like trying to fit a round cork into a square hole. They could buy the Sudan and colonize it and make it bloom.

And in fifty years we'd have the same situation. Except instead of Palestinians blowing themselves up it'd be Sudanese.

Besides, practically, the Israelis have a very well run, modern nation there. What do the Palestinians have? Nothing but dirt. If we were going to move anyone it ought to be the Palestinians.

[Argus]

I am trying to be "nice" because this is a canadian forum, but how do you know there was no evidence of their being guilty of ANYTHING? Those nasty Americans put them there because they did not like the way the combed their hair. Oh, and the group hug got us here:

If your remarks are what you consider nice; I would hate to hear how you really feel. The prisoners are being tortured in many prisons including the one in Cuba;

Not according to international human rights agencies. I don't believe the Red Cross has ever claimed prisoners in Cuba are being tortured. Furthermore, those who are released are not neccesarily released because there was "NO evidence". We have one of them here in Canada, after all, a guy who attended a terrorist training school in Afghanistan, along with his brothers and fathers (since either killed or captured), and he was released, as far as I can see, because he cooperated and named names.

[August1991]

There is not the slightest doubt that Canada is indeed maturing - and its citizens showing a sophistication and understanding that has not reached you.

I see no difference between this dispute and say, Diefenbaker's rejection of the Bomarc missile.

Quebecers are generally isolationists and they now express their opinions more openly.

I also note that Canada's urban areas are populated by immigrants and they tend to vote Liberal federally.

IOW, I see no "maturing" process.

It was not until the late 19th. century, following massive immigration and British investment that America achieved anything close to parity with Britain.

I frankly don't know what the issue is here.

In the 19th century, America offered wonderful opportunity to foreigners and foreign investors. The US got involved, entirely on its own, in one of the bloodiest conflicts in history and certainly the bloodiest on this continent. Their military was enough of a threat at the time to justify our confederation.

IMV, the Monroe Doctrine was designed to keep European machinations out of the Americas. (Americans perceived Europeans as nefarious. Have you ever heard of Maximilian of Mexico?)

In WWII, it was the pro-German sentiment that delayed America's entry into the war. Pacificism and anti-militarism had nothing to do with it: isolationism did have a part.

Debateable point. I'd go with isolationism, not fascist-sympathizers (despite Lindbergh et al.) My reasoning? The post war era.

Many Americans feel that WWII was a great error. From it, they learned that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Kennedy wrote (or ghost wrote) Why England Slept.

The American instinct, like the Quebec or Latin American instinct, is not to get involved. WWII taught Americans that that is no longer possible.

Where do I defend the "Right of Saddam to hang onto power" in Iraq? That is for the Iraqi people to decide or for an empowered United Nations.

Here, I would agree with you. Despite the ongoing mess in Romania, the fact that ordinary Romanians caught that couple and executed them is important in their history.

Unfortunately, Iraqis didn't get that liberty. Iraq has been thrust on to the world stage and will get its 15 minutes of fame. In a few years, it will become another Vietnam and people may go there for exotic tourism.

The UN? God help us all if the UN ever gets seriously involved in nation-building.

There is no possible defense of American unilateralism. It is illegal, immoral and based on lies.It always has been in these situations.

It was not unilateral. Many other countries are involved. According to many, the US action was justified under existing UN resolutions.

Would you say the US action in Serbia was wrong? The UN did not sanction it. Canada supported it.

Iraqis are certainly not too ignorant to have democratic institutions. Neither are they doomed to forever live under "brutal dictatorship." But, do they want what you think of as democratic institutions? They have a culture and tradition that is antipathetic to what we think of as democracy.

Culture and tradition? Huh?

As for the UN Human Rights body, I think you should get off that hobbyhorse. It is a huge step forward in world affairs when a Libyan can be the head of that sub sector of the UN. It is an indication that Libya is on the way to becoming what you think Iraq should be - or is finding a balance in its traditions that allows respect for Rights as the rest of the world views them.

Here, eureka, I honestly don't know what the heck you are talking about. Do you think the UN was going to civilize Qaddafi?

The sight of a bearded, confused Saddam had a large effect on these two-bit thugs.

They, like you apparently, live in a world where the strong dominate the weak unless we appeal to man's better angels.

The strength of the US is based on something entirely different, certainly not angels. It is based on individual freedom.

[ft.niagara]

I would like to thank eureka, Argus, and August1991 for their lengthy and well crafted postings. I enjoyed reading your (canadian) views. It seems that just as in the US, there is great debate as to the proper course of action.

[caesar]

Only Albertans agree with the USA point of view; there are many Americans in Alberta and they have the majority of our oil and have to a great degree caught the American disease of worshipping the almighty dollar.

There were and are not MANY countries that agreed with the USA, Some backed them worrying about the economic lashback if they did not. the two main (recognizeable) nations of Great Britain and Australia did NOT have the backing of the people. The leaders there will have a hard time holding onto power come election time.

Do not presume that those supporting your warped view are Canadians; it is not unusual for American to come on our forums masquerading as Canadian when they are in truth American.