Parrish: Should She Join NDP?

[Argus]

I am humbled, Argus,

Yes, probably quite regularly. You should be.

Could I explain to you "coherently how these things work at the highest levels? Probably not since I lack your sweeping knowledge of the inner workings of everything.

Confession is good for the soul. But you didn't need to - we already knew.

However, representations at the highest levels do, in my view, have some effect on the actions of nations and their leaders.

That is not really relevent to what I said. Diplomatic communications leave no one in much doubt about how other nations feel. I did not say "representations" at the highest levels, but "condemnations" at the highest levels - public condemnations that you and others - like Parrish - seem to believe are neccesary for some reason.

A united front by all those world leaders who agree that Bush is a very dangerous leader would, I think have given Bush pause.

And who thinks this? Putin, busy turning back the clock to the days of authoritariansm? Chirac, a corrupt man only re-elected because his opponent was a facist? Jiabao of China, that soft-hearted butcher of anyone who disagrees with him or the Communist party?

For trade issues, I would suggest that you consider need. The US needs Canada every bit as much as Canada needs the US.

Oh? Do they export half of all their manufactured goods to us? Nope. Do we buy 85% of their exports? Nope. Do they have a $92billion trade surplus with us? Nope. Perhaps you could tell me why, then, the US needs us as much as we need them.

[Guest eureka]

Statements again, Argus! Could you please give us some of the facts and reasons? Try to support your beliefs.

Can you, for example, try to get your head around the notion that the proportions of economic activity betwen the two countries are not really a very important factor. The US needs that trade as much as we do. Significant interruption would throw the USA into Depression.

There is also the degree to which the Canadian exports to the US are American owned. That makes a huge difference in the levels you quote without understanding. It is one of the reasons I have posted that we should talk more of GNP than of GDP.

You might also give some thought to the psychology of dealing with agression and with bullies.

[caesar]

Oh? Do they export half of all their manufactured goods to us? Nope. Do we buy 85% of their exports? Nope. Do they have a $92billion trade surplus with us? Nope. Perhaps you could tell me why, then, the US needs us as much as we need them.

Oil natural gas, resources

[caesar]

I await with trepidation your incisive rebuttal of my concerns. I wonder whether you will do this with facts rather than statements asserting your superior knowlege.

Facts?????? not likely. eh

[JWayne625]

I think that Parrish has the same delusion that many Canaidian's especially from Quebec have, and that is that Canada can survive without the United Staes and the trade we have with them. Some are even delusional enough to think that aligning ourselves with the likes of France and Germany will somehow make us more prosperous.

It is now being revealed that Iran is manufacturing nuclear bomb material as we speak and has speeded up that production ahead of their agreement to stop doing that very thing. France, Germany and Russia are all up to their dirty little armpits with investments into God knows what in Iran, the same as they were doing in Iraq, even though it was in violation of UN sanctions. Let's not forget something here, France is a country for the mostpart of cowards who caved in to Germany without a shot being fired, and they would be flying the Swaztika today if it wasn't for Canada, the US, and Brittain.

Let's remember that Germany lost two attempts at conquering the world, now they are one of the driving forces behind the European Union. Could this be attempt number three, only this time they are attempting to accomplish it financially instead of using weapons? If that is the case France is staunch ally of Germany's. Just speculating.

[Chloe]

JWayne625,

You make very interesting points. Do you have anything else to add?

[Chloe]

I think that Parrish has the same delusion that many Canaidian's especially from Quebec have, and that is that Canada can survive without the United Staes and the trade we have with them. Some are even delusional enough to think that aligning ourselves with the likes of France and Germany will somehow make us more prosperous.

It is now being revealed that Iran is manufacturing nuclear bomb material as we speak and has speeded up that production ahead of their agreement to stop doing that very thing. France, Germany and Russia are all up to their dirty little armpits with investments into God knows what in Iran, the same as they were doing in Iraq, even though it was in violation of UN sanctions. Let's not forget something here, France is a country for the mostpart of cowards who caved in to Germany without a shot being fired, and they would be flying the Swaztika today if it wasn't for Canada, the US, and Brittain.

Let's remember that Germany lost two attempts at conquering the world, now they are one of the driving forces behind the European Union. Could this be attempt number three, only this time they are attempting to accomplish it financially instead of using weapons? If that is the case France is staunch ally of Germany's. Just speculating.

JWayne625:

"Let's remember that Germany lost two attempts at conquering the world, now they are one of the driving forces behind the European Union. Could this be attempt number three, only this time they are attempting to accomplish it financially instead of using weapons? If that is the case France is staunch ally of Germany's. Just speculating."

I think that's a good possibilty, I mean why wouldn't they.

People keep worrying about the US, and all but with all the anti-US hatred going on, I think the Americans are paving the way for their replacement, the EU.

Doing this unintentionally of course.

[Argus]

Statements again, Argus!

Yes, statements of fact - you know, those things so noticeably absent from your arguments.

Can you, for example, try to get your head around the notion that the proportions of economic activity betwen the two countries are not really a very important factor.

Uh, no.

The US needs that trade as much as we do.

Clearly that is not the case.

Significant interruption would throw the USA into Depression.

And yet, given the disparity of importance, what is a significant interruption for us is a barely noticed flea bite to them.

[Argus]

Oh? Do they export half of all their manufactured goods to us? Nope. Do we buy 85% of their exports? Nope. Do they have a $92billion trade surplus with us? Nope. Perhaps you could tell me why, then, the US needs us as much as we need them.

Oil natural gas, resources

Which they can pretty much get anywhere they want.

Do you think we can find someone to take half our manufactured goods off our hands just as easily?

[caesar]

You may be willing to sell your soul for the almighty yankee dollar but many of us are not. We can buy Canadian good ourselves instead of buying "made in

America" or elsewhere. China has a large growing market. Irregardless; we are not advocating stopping all trade to and from the USA; just toss out free trade and free us from their unfair demands and illegal tactics.

[Guest eureka]

Uh, No, just about sums you up.

The complexiies are too much for you. Your statements of fact are sadly lacking in content: so lacking that I hope you will excuse those of us who want to know for not considering them as facts at all.

[Argus]

You may be willing to sell your soul for the almighty yankee dollar but many of us are not.  We can buy Canadian good ourselves instead of buying "made in

America" or elsewhere.

Yes, as can they, only it would hurt is far more.

And you mistake me. I am pointing out that your desire to see blustering morons like Parrish braying anti-American slogans would accomplish nothing good and could threaten our economic well-being. By pointing this out I am not implying I would otherwise want to loudly protest US policy. I have some problems with aspects of their policy, but not nearly as much as people who spend little time or effort on thinking things through have.

  China has a large growing market.

And we have a large and growing trade deficit with China, because they are extremely protectionist.

[Argus]

Uh, No, just about sums you up.

The complexiies are too much for you.

You really think your shrill, knee-jerk anti-Americanism is complex, do you? That's rather sad.

Your statements of fact are sadly lacking in content: so lacking that I hope you will excuse those of us who want to know for not considering them as facts at all.

What you mean is that you are not interested in facts. But I already knew that, as you never post any of them, just emotional nonsense and wild accusations.

Perhaps when you grow up you'll learn how to properly discuss an issue without your eyes bugging out and spittle spraying your monitor.

[Chloe]

Hahahahahaha.....Argus that was funny, I must say...but ummm ya lets see Crying I hate Bush really got Parrish far. I wonder how much of her comment will actully give her the results she wanted.

Does she think Bush is sitting by his bed crying "that woman called me a NAME!!" Give me a break she has not accomplished anything with her tactics and never will if she continues her behaviour. Maybe if she flew over to one of those countries where you have grown women and men in the governement throwing food at each other while trying to solve their issues, she'd probably have more of an effect their.

[Guest eureka]

Argus!

If you really want that kind of exchange, I would take you on and take you any time but Greg won't like it.

You post nothing but statements of prejudice and you think you can slide around your inability to respond with that juvenile stuff. How many times have I seen posters who have no argument use the spraying the moitor bit.

Try reading the lead up to World Wars one and two to find what your type of compliance to aggressors leads to. Don't accuse others of Anti-Americanism to cover the cowardly role you would have us perform.

When I grow up! I dealt with aggressive government and the portion of a populace that supported it before you were out of short pants - though the childishness of your replies makes me wonder whether you have grown that far.

You talk of time thinking things through. I doubt that you ever think things through: you are too full of yourself for that.

[Stoker]

Try reading the lead up to World Wars one and two to find what your type of compliance to aggressors leads to. Don't accuse others of Anti-Americanism to cover the cowardly role you would have us perform.

Do you understand what hypocrisy means?

Or do you think it right to only oppose "American aggression", nevermind that America was attacked first, and to forget the segments of Islam that wish to destroy not just the United States, but us as well, and the nation states that support them.

[Guest eureka]

I understand it well: I see it every day posing as self-righteous indignation over the pretence that is the Iraq war. I see it every time George Bush opens his mouth. But, since the word is a four-syllabled one, I suspect that not many of the proud "Right Wingers" would understand it or realize their monopoly of the hypocrites..

For once, open your mind to the reality that the US was not attacked first. Saddam did not attack the USA. Those who did attack the US (if you mean the WTC) were the enemies of Saddam. Until Iraq presented an excuse for America's Imperial ambitions, The US acted on the old principle that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends." Saddam had been a friend and a beneficiary of American largesse. Bush has now made it clear that it may be more dangerous to be a friend than an enemy

Neither was the US attacked first by Afghanistan. The Taliban shielded Al Quaeda; it was not Al Quaeda. The American justification for going as far as they have with respect to the Taliban was to end the opium trade and to "bring Freedom and Democracy". As we know, that trade is now larger than ever and the Americans have, essentially, pulled out and left the country to the warlords and the Poppy growers.

Democracy in Afghanistan is a sham. Freedom is better than under the Taliban for those who are in safe areas but it is not as widespread as it was before the Taliban.

Many, many countries were under attack by terrorists with a variety of causes before 9/11. Bush and company did not care about that but expects the whole world to mobilise to his messianic crusade.

Terrorism must be dealt with in all its forms. It must be dealt with in those countries that have suffered far more from it than the USA. The invasion of countries that were not generators of terrorist activities and the slaughter of innocents has no connection with any mission to end, or in Kerry's term" render terrorism a nuisance." It will always be around and we can hope to reduce it to a nuisance, but not before Bush is consigned to political oblivion.

[August1991]

When I grow up! I dealt with aggressive government and the portion of a populace that supported it before you were out of short pants - though the childishness of your replies makes me wonder whether you have grown that far.

It appears you're rather childish in your way of dealing with contrary posters.

Neither was the US attacked first by Afghanistan. The Taliban shielded Al Quaeda; it was not Al Quaeda.

Huh?

The American justification for going as far as they have with respect to the Taliban was to end the opium trade and to "bring Freedom and Democracy". As we know, that trade is now larger than ever and the Americans have, essentially, pulled out and left the country to the warlords and the Poppy growers.

What is it with the Left/CBC? You goes always find some way to blame the US/Bush for the world's problems. Now it's Afghan opium.

A coalition of countries (including Canada) invaded Afghanistan to remove a government that permitted al-Qaeda to operate on its territory.

Should America have stood by and watched?

[caesar]

And you mistake me. I am pointing out that your desire to see blustering morons like Parrish braying anti-American slogans would accomplish nothing good and could threaten our economic well-being. By pointing this out I am not implying I would otherwise want to loudly protest US policy. I have some problems with aspects of their policy, but not nearly as much as people who spend little time or effort on thinking things through have.

I would rather listen to an angry person like Parrish than an arrogant heartless tyrant like Bush. Iraq did not attack America, was not a threat to America; had no WMD;

Yet Bush and Co allow Pakistan to condone its scientists selling nuclear technologies and parts to "rogue nations"

[August1991]

Yet Bush and Co allow Pakistan to condone its scientists selling nuclear technologies and parts to "rogue nations"

So, you are not against the US invading countries or imposing its will on other countries, you simply object to its choice of countries.

[KrustyKidd]

I expect Parrish will become something of a folk-hero now. Imagine! An elected official stating a opinion and not kowtowing to the party line! The very nerve! +

I think she stinks, but some people don't. And the ones that don't are the ones who elected her. In muzzling her, Martin stifled their voice, however silly and ignorent it was Freedom failed this country here and that is a bigger issue than petty politics.

Parrish Gets Pruned

[maplesyrup]

America was attacked first,

What country attacked the United States first on US soil?

[Stoker]

For once, open your mind to the reality that the US was not attacked first. Saddam did not attack the USA. Those who did attack the US (if you mean the WTC) were the enemies of Saddam. Until Iraq presented an excuse for America's Imperial ambitions, The US acted on the old principle that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends." Saddam had been a friend and a beneficiary of American largesse. Bush has now made it clear that it may be more dangerous to be a friend than an enemy

We'll forget about Al-Zaquri recieving treatment for the wounds he recieved in the war Afghanistain in a Iraqi hospital.........Instead let's focus on the new era in which the United States views itself in after the events of 9/11.

The United States is now of the mindset that it's better to "land the first blow" instead of being reactionary. It really doesn't matter if Iraq had ties to 9/11 or not, the Americans are now going to take action now and ask questions later. The war isn't being fought against OBL and friends, but anybody that could pose a threat to the United States way of life.

Again, might makes right and the best defence is a good offence............and all those clichés

Neither was the US attacked first by Afghanistan. The Taliban shielded Al Quaeda; it was not Al Quaeda. The American justification for going as far as they have with respect to the Taliban was to end the opium trade and to "bring Freedom and Democracy". As we know, that trade is now larger than ever and the Americans have, essentially, pulled out and left the country to the warlords and the Poppy growers.

Have you been smoking the opium? The United States told the ruling taliban to hand of Osama, they didn't, they got tossed.

Democracy in Afghanistan is a sham. Freedom is better than under the Taliban for those who are in safe areas but it is not as widespread as it was before the Taliban.

So all were better off under the Taliban? Ask any Afghan woman if she feels like that.......it's now alright to talk to a married women in Afghanistain.

Many, many countries were under attack by terrorists with a variety of causes before 9/11. Bush and company did not care about that but expects the whole world to mobilise to his messianic crusade.

Did Canada and company care? What about the bungle in the jungle? Somlia? Those that live in glass houses....

Terrorism must be dealt with in all its forms. It must be dealt with in those countries that have suffered far more from it than the USA. The invasion of countries that were not generators of terrorist activities and the slaughter of innocents has no connection with any mission to end, or in Kerry's term" render terrorism a nuisance." It will always be around and we can hope to reduce it to a nuisance, but not before Bush is consigned to political oblivion.

Didn't Saddam offer cash rewards to suicide bombers families? Since thats the case, iraq was helping to encourage terror.......Iraq has been dealt with....so do you know support the war?

[Stoker]

What country attacked the United States first on US soil?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[August1991]

In muzzling her, Martin stifled their voice, however silly and ignorent it was Freedom failed this country here and that is a bigger issue than petty politics.

Sorry KK, the NDP and the CBC offer ample opportunity for Parrish-type views. PM PM apparently decided it was worse having her inside the tent pissing than on the outside pissing.

----

America was attacked first,

What country attacked the United States first on US soil?

WTF? The British? Native Indians? Japan? Canada? (How is the relevant to anything?)

You got me truly flummoxed this time MS.