I am not American...

[Concerned]

The Americans will not claim ownership over Iraq's oil, nor of the royalties from its exploitation. The Americans are not in Iraq so that American oil companies can sign production contracts.

The US government invaded Iraq because it perceived Saddam Hussein as a threat. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

August, if Saddam was such a threat, why didn't the pre-invasion plan include the guarding of Al Qa Qaa, a huge munitions dump. After all, wasn't most of Iraq's oil refineries heavily protected? And why no guarding of the certain borders, say like Syria, just in case those peskly WMD's might wander awry?

August, if Saddam was such a threat (as the Bush administration positioned itself politically at home...to gain the support of the American people...I see you got royally sucked in)...then why is it there was so much controversy over the facts surrounding ownership of weapons of mass destruction...this was precisely the theory that Cheny and Bush ran with to arouse support for the so called, one sided war.....and none were ever found ???

The American administration also claimed Saddam had links to Al Quaeda and Bin Laden, wasn't that convenient to raise the fears surrounding 9/11 and support for the war ?? There was never any evidence found of these links either.

Precisely why the UN did not support the American Invasion of Iraq....what did the UN know that the American people (and you )...did not ??

[Concerned]

But insults against the U.S. are not only against Bush, they are stereotypes against the American people. Yeah, Bush is a redneck. There is nothing wrong with that...but he is. And he's a hawk. It is what it is. But Bush's home state is Texas, not a northern state. Too many Canadians say the average American is like Bush, how often have we heard the Americans are a bunch of gun-toting Bible-thumping rednecks who only care about themselves and are engrossed in their hedonistic cutthroat conservative consumerist society, while Canadians are "kind and gentle" looking out for their fellow citizen and living in a laid back society.

It's bull and it always has been. People aren't ready to recognize it here though, and that was the point of August's post. He's dead-on and I stand by him.

Ha ha TML - you do crack me up. Honestly you must have perverse group of acquaintences from which you are deriving these so called opinions. It kills me when one Canadian can quote the "average Canadian", "most Canadians" or "too many Canadians". I don't doubt that there are Canadians who say that too many Americans are bible thumping rednecks, however I don't think you can quote the averages until you run a statistically adequate survey. The trouble is there are too many LOUD MOUTHED bible thumping rednecks out there, and they tend to get the attention of the media, and the average Canadian. Disagreeing with opinions of the far right does not make the average Canadian Anti-American.

[August1991]

No one precieved Saddam Hussein as a threat. As Chris Rock said "If Iraq was such a threat why did it only take two weeks to take over thE whole motherfu**king country?"

Iraq was invaded precisely because it was not a threat: it was a sitting duck sitting on a whole lot of oil.

Chris Rock is about as much of an authority on security issues as I am about American reality TV shows. But, well, everyone is entitles to an opinion...

BD, remember shpck and awe? I distinctly remember many people (including this guy) saying that Rumsfeld would be stuck outside of Baghdad for months, in some kind of Iraqi quagmire. No one realized how easy it would be, at first. Although the intelligent ones knew it wouldn't be easy in the long run.

In any case, the threat of Saddam was the threat of WMD, and specifically the threat of Saddam sharing those WMD with a terrorist group. This trheat has not disappeared but it has subsided. I consider one of the major vistories of the Iraq war was Qaddafi's opening to the West and his admission of his weapon's programmes. The US has made it clear that it will stand up to aggression.

It blows my mind that people who consider temselves educated and politically aware can look at the global situation today (oil prices climbing amid fears of dwindling supplies; a rising power in China eager with a growing thirst for the stuff; a self-described "addiction" to oil on the part of the world's largets economy and consumer) and shrug off the influence of this most vital commodity on the decision to go to war. In the context of history, and with any knowledge of military or geopolitical strategy, oil is the only reason that makes any sense.

BD, has it ever occurred to you that most of the oil in the Middle East goes to China and Japan? So, if this war is about oil, the US is just guaranteeing the oil supplies of its "competitors".

And if it were just about oil, the US could have avoided a war, made a deal with Saddam and obtained as much oil as they wanted.

All of these oil theories are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of markets in general and the world oil market in particular. If you see the world oil supply as a large pie that is cut into pieces for different consuming countries, then I suppose you might view this war as an effort to get a bigger piece of the pie.

In fact, the world oil market determines both supply and demand. There is no pie to be sliced. A better analogy might be herding cats, or herding rabbits.

[tml12]

But insults against the U.S. are not only against Bush, they are stereotypes against the American people. Yeah, Bush is a redneck. There is nothing wrong with that...but he is. And he's a hawk. It is what it is. But Bush's home state is Texas, not a northern state. Too many Canadians say the average American is like Bush, how often have we heard the Americans are a bunch of gun-toting Bible-thumping rednecks who only care about themselves and are engrossed in their hedonistic cutthroat conservative consumerist society, while Canadians are "kind and gentle" looking out for their fellow citizen and living in a laid back society.

It's bull and it always has been. People aren't ready to recognize it here though, and that was the point of August's post. He's dead-on and I stand by him.

Ha ha TML - you do crack me up. Honestly you must have perverse group of acquaintences from which you are deriving these so called opinions. It kills me when one Canadian can quote the "average Canadian", "most Canadians" or "too many Canadians". I don't doubt that there are Canadians who say that too many Americans are bible thumping rednecks, however I don't think you can quote the averages until you run a statistically adequate survey. The trouble is there are too many LOUD MOUTHED bible thumping rednecks out there, and they tend to get the attention of the media, and the average Canadian. Disagreeing with opinions of the far right does not make the average Canadian Anti-American.

Concerned,

You are correct that no one should quote the "average American" or "average Canadian." These societies are too complicated to just be stereotyped. However, saying "too many" does not constitute the average person.

Bush's father said "I am a conservative, but I am not a nut about it." Well, I say the same thing. I am no fan of President Bush or many of his policies. If a liberal said, "f*ck Bush," of course that would not be anti-American. But when liberal Carolyn Parrish says, "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards," are you telling me she is just criticizing Bush?

I do not criticize people who criticize Bush...hell, I criticize him and I know I am not anti-American. But too often criticisms of the Americans and criticisms of Bush fall hand in hand so you can't tell the difference between the two criticisms.

And that has been the point of all my posts on this thread.

[Black Dog]

Chris Rock is about as much of an authority on security issues as I am about American reality TV shows. But, well, everyone is entitles to an opinion...

BD, remember shpck and awe? I distinctly remember many people (including this guy) saying that Rumsfeld would be stuck outside of Baghdad for months, in some kind of Iraqi quagmire. No one realized how easy it would be, at first. Although the intelligent ones knew it wouldn't be easy in the long run.

Pish. Also: posh.

The Iraqi army was decimated in the first Gulf War. What was left was a rag tag collection of conscripts armed with second-rate weaponry. No air force. No navy. No threat, as this pre war assessment indicates.

The Iraqi army lacks any real offensive capabilities, even towards smaller countries such as Jordan. In the absence of external interference, it is capable of confronting the militias of the Kurds and the Shiites, and the armed forces of a diminutive country like Kuwait, but not more than that. There is no real cause for concern that Saddam will respond to an attack on Iraq with a ground assault on the neighboring countries or that he poses a real threat to them, even if the U.S. attack is not preceded by a large concentration of U.S. ground forces in the region. The only qualification to this is that Kuwait and the Kurds are likely to require some ground reinforcements by U.S. ground forces.

In any case, the threat of Saddam was the threat of WMD, and specifically the threat of Saddam sharing those WMD with a terrorist group. This trheat has not disappeared but it has subsided. I consider one of the major vistories of the Iraq war was Qaddafi's opening to the West and his admission of his weapon's programmes. The US has made it clear that it will stand up to aggression.

First: supplying WMD to terrorist groups is great for James Bond or Jack on "24", but bad policy. Why would a dictator like Saddam, a man who believed he embodied the Iraqi regime, go through the trouble of manufacturing WMD and then hand them off to someone he had no control over, someone who could turn around and use those weapons on him if they wanted? No, that dog don't hunt.

Second: you do know that Qaddafi's openness on his WMD programs predated the Iraq war, right?

BD, has it ever occurred to you that most of the oil in the Middle East goes to China and Japan? So, if this war is about oil, the US is just guaranteeing the oil supplies of its "competitors".

And if it were just about oil, the US could have avoided a war, made a deal with Saddam and obtained as much oil as they wanted.

All of these oil theories are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of markets in general and the world oil market in particular. If you see the world oil supply as a large pie that is cut into pieces for different consuming countries, then I suppose you might view this war as an effort to get a bigger piece of the pie.

In fact, the world oil market determines both supply and demand. There is no pie to be sliced. A better analogy might be herding cats, or herding rabbits.

Which is partly why Iraq is such an important piece. Iraqi oil is vital to the global oil marketplace. With Saddam still in chagre, any oil money would go to him and the companies he favoured (French and Russian, mostly). With Saddam gone, the extra supply goes into the global market, lowering the price (part of the reason for the rising oil prices overthe past couple of years has been the scarcity of Iraqi oil). American companies get dibs on exploration and construction conracts and the United States gets a new military foothold in the region to safeguard that supply for tehmselves. That was the idea, anyway.

[tml12]

"American companies get dibs on exploration and construction conracts and the United States gets a new military foothold in the region to safeguard that supply for tehmselves. That was the idea, anyway."

And a Conservative government in Ottawa means we get our share now too...

And the Iraqi people get a democracy...

[geoffrey]

"American companies get dibs on exploration and construction conracts and the United States gets a new military foothold in the region to safeguard that supply for tehmselves. That was the idea, anyway."

And a Conservative government in Ottawa means we get our share now too...

And the Iraqi people get a democracy...

Uhh progress, development and democracy are bad things tml. Social justice can ONLY be allowed in Canada, Iraqi's don't deserve this... Get on board the left train and start being liberal!

[Black Dog]

And a Conservative government in Ottawa means we get our share now too...

How do you figure? You think that they're gonna spend billions securing access to oil and just give it a way to any old Stevie-come-lately?

And the Iraqi people get a democracy...

And a fundamentalist, Iranian affiliated government! Yay?

Uhh progress, development and democracy are bad things tml. Social justice can ONLY be allowed in Canada, Iraqi's don't deserve this... Get on board the left train and start being liberal

Bo-ring!

[tml12]

Don't be surprised if they do...

As for Iran, how do you figure it is related to Iraq? The Iraqis would rather have Bush as PM over anyone from Iran...

[tml12]

"American companies get dibs on exploration and construction conracts and the United States gets a new military foothold in the region to safeguard that supply for tehmselves. That was the idea, anyway."

And a Conservative government in Ottawa means we get our share now too...

And the Iraqi people get a democracy...

Uhh progress, development and democracy are bad things tml. Social justice can ONLY be allowed in Canada, Iraqi's don't deserve this... Get on board the left train and start being liberal!

[Black Dog]

Don't be surprised if they do...

As for Iran, how do you figure it is related to Iraq? The Iraqis would rather have Bush as PM over anyone from Iran

Do your homework. Iraq is Shiite. Iran is Shiite. The United Iraqi Alliance garnered the most votes in the December election. The Alliance is a coalition of Shiite parties, including the Islamic Al-Da'wa Party and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a party that was based out of Tehran in the 1980's and whose contemporary leaders are trained and backed by Iran. The coalition is also said to have the backing of Iraq's most important Shiite cleric, the Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Prior to the election, Iraqi politicians visited Iran, with interim PM Ibrahim al-Jaafari laying a wreath on the Ayatollah Khommeni's grave. I could go on, but Iran has made little secret of its attempts to re-establish the close relationship the two countries had in the pre-Hussein era.

[Insom Elvis]

I have to add my input here, I am an American, born and raised close to Las Vegas, Nevada and being an American I may or may not be welcome here but that's really up to your perception of myself, and possibly any stereotypes that may be floating around. I will support my country, my countrymen, and my president until one or the other does something to threaten the freedom that so many of our men have died defending. I would have died in battle under president Clinton's term of office although I hated his lack of morals and failure to be truthful. I don't agree with everything Bush, the current presiden does, but if I protest this in public, I am giving live ammunition to those who seek to destroy us. Perhaps we did start the Iraq war, for now lets go ahead and say we did. Iraq invade Kuwait, this is not fiction. In their greed, Iraq attacked an easy target for personal gain and who was there to protect them? Well America showed up and kicked Saddam's ass back to Iraq right? We could have had Iraq straightened out a lot faster except due to the fact that we willingly submitted to U.N. oversight, our mission for democracy and freedom for the people of Iraq was postponed for 12 years. In that time, many of the people of Iraq became extremely disenfranchised, they were so willing to surrender to the freedom of our jail cells rather than submit to the authority of a murderous dictatorship but we were foced to withdraw to see that things were done in the most sensible fashion. If I see a large boy hit a small girl I'm going to interfere even if I am not that boy's parent. Does this make me an evil satan worshipper? What's the difference in what we did with Iraq? Same with Vietnam and Korea, the little guy got picked on and we stepped in with great loss to our own assets. I'd gladly die for my country, but could you imagine dying for someone else's? Or say you live, but half of your comrades in arms were taken by whatever war you fought in and you have to live the rest of your life hearing their screams in your sleep at night and hearing people constantly badmouth YOU for sticking up for another civilization. As far as U.S. and Canadian relations, we're business partners. I see it as a bit more, we're long time neighbors and friends. You helped us gain our freedom and you have my personal thanks for that. I believe you also have troops on the field in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken, then rest assured that we appreciate their support. I feel a strong sense of pride that we've come so far, both civilized nations standing side-by-side without ever having to take up arms against eachother. Now as far as the politicians go, you're close, we need your resources and you need our money. Done deal, the transaction is made in the open, legally and with full support from both sides. Where's the problem? Our politicians may be arrogant, they might not care about you, but thats why they represent our budget and not our heart. At a time like this, where America is under quiet seige from terrorists and stressing out about wars abroad it's nice to know that if we get hit hard maybe Canada would watch our backs. And likewise, trust me! If your coastline was invaded it would take one phone call and you'd have so much support from the greatest military on earth that you wouldn't know where to fit them all. I know for damn sure we wouldn't sit idly by if you were ever hit, but if that never happens are you going to sit there and accuse us of wanting to take you over? That's ridiculous and I hope you rethink your logic because that's almost offensive.

[tml12]

Dear Insom Elvis,

"I have to add my input here, I am an American, born and raised close to Las Vegas, Nevada and being an American I may or may not be welcome here but that's really up to your perception of myself, and possibly any stereotypes that may be floating around."

You are more than welcome here!!! This is a forum where Canadians (and we have Americans here too) discuss issues that relate to both our countries. We welcome your perspective and any insight you may offer. Anti-Americanism exists in Canada for sure, but it is a minority of our population please understand that.

"I will support my country, my countrymen, and my president until one or the other does something to threaten the freedom that so many of our men have died defending."

It is your right and your decision to do that. I am not a fan of Bush, but I am a moderate conservative and I support the right of people to defend whom they see fit.

"I would have died in battle under president Clinton's term of office although I hated his lack of morals and failure to be truthful."

I didn't like Clinton either for his lack of morals.

"I don't agree with everything Bush, the current presiden does, but if I protest this in public, I am giving live ammunition to those who seek to destroy us."

As someone with American cousins and Canadian friends in the U.S. military, I agree that left-wing protest a la Cindy Sheehan does hurt the morale of troops.

"Perhaps we did start the Iraq war, for now lets go ahead and say we did. Iraq invade Kuwait, this is not fiction. In their greed, Iraq attacked an easy target for personal gain and who was there to protect them? Well America showed up and kicked Saddam's ass back to Iraq right? We could have had Iraq straightened out a lot faster except due to the fact that we willingly submitted to U.N. oversight, our mission for democracy and freedom for the people of Iraq was postponed for 12 years. In that time, many of the people of Iraq became extremely disenfranchised, they were so willing to surrender to the freedom of our jail cells rather than submit to the authority of a murderous dictatorship but we were foced to withdraw to see that things were done in the most sensible fashion. If I see a large boy hit a small girl I'm going to interfere even if I am not that boy's parent. Does this make me an evil satan worshipper? What's the difference in what we did with Iraq? Same with Vietnam and Korea, the little guy got picked on and we stepped in with great loss to our own assets. I'd gladly die for my country, but could you imagine dying for someone else's? Or say you live, but half of your comrades in arms were taken by whatever war you fought in and you have to live the rest of your life hearing their screams in your sleep at night and hearing people constantly badmouth YOU for sticking up for another civilization."

Excellent, I cannot disagree with anything you have written here.

"As far as U.S. and Canadian relations, we're business partners. I see it as a bit more, we're long time neighbors and friends. You helped us gain our freedom and you have my personal thanks for that. I believe you also have troops on the field in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken, then rest assured that we appreciate their support."

Thanks... And yes we do have troops there...working side by side with the Americans...permanent friends and allies that we are...

"I feel a strong sense of pride that we've come so far, both civilized nations standing side-by-side without ever having to take up arms against each other."

Me too...

"Now as far as the politicians go, you're close, we need your resources and you need our money. Done deal, the transaction is made in the open, legally and with full support from both sides. Where's the problem? Our politicians may be arrogant, they might not care about you, but thats why they represent our budget and not our heart."

Our politicians are very arrogant too. The Liberal Party here tried to tear apart our relations for their own political gain. They are shameful...Canadians rose up and defeated this odious and loathing Liberal government in order to elect a Conservative one that promises to be much more friendly to our friends and allies down there.

"At a time like this, where America is under quiet seige from terrorists and stressing out about wars abroad it's nice to know that if we get hit hard maybe Canada would watch our backs. And likewise, trust me! If your coastline was invaded it would take one phone call and you'd have so much support from the greatest military on earth that you wouldn't know where to fit them all. I know for damn sure we wouldn't sit idly by if you were ever hit, but if that never happens are you going to sit there and accuse us of wanting to take you over? That's ridiculous and I hope you rethink your logic because that's almost offensive."

I have lived in the United States before and, in this thread and on this forum, have defended the United States and highlighted the extreme importance of Canada-U.S. relations and the importance of them. Rest assured that the majority of Canadians hold the U.S. in high regard and respect its ideals. There are many Canadians, ones that sadly consider themselves "quasi-intellectuals" who try and use hateful leftist rhetoric to move Canada apart from the U.S. This will not happen. This cannot happen. This will never happen.

I think you have written a beautiful post. Rest assured that you are most respected here and we look forward to your commentary. Thank you for keeping the peace on the other side of the border.

[Black Dog]

I don't agree with everything Bush, the current presiden does, but if I protest this in public, I am giving live ammunition to those who seek to destroy us.

How thouroughly Un-American.

. If I see a large boy hit a small girl I'm going to interfere even if I am not that boy's parent. Does this make me an evil satan worshipper? What's the difference in what we did with Iraq?

Analogies like that are appealing in their simplicity, but totally useless. For example, don't you find it odd that you had no problem helping that little boy when he was running around hitting other kids that you didn't like?

As far as U.S. and Canadian relations, we're business partners. I see it as a bit more, we're long time neighbors and friends. You helped us gain our freedom and you have my personal thanks for that.

Uh... do know one of the key groups that helped found Canada were the United Empire Loyalists: that is, people loyal to the Britsish Crown who fled your country after the Revolution?

At a time like this, where America is under quiet seige from terrorists and stressing out about wars abroad it's nice to know that if we get hit hard maybe Canada would watch our backs

Well, you'd probably ahve a lot less to stress about if your president wasn't starting uneccesary wars and making even more enemies in the one region in the world where your country can least afford it.

[Concerned]

I have to add my input here, I am an American, born and raised close to Las Vegas, Nevada and being an American I may or may not be welcome here but that's really up to your perception of myself, and possibly any stereotypes that may be floating around. I will support my country, my countrymen, and my president until one or the other does something to threaten the freedom that so many of our men have died defending. I would have died in battle under president Clinton's term of office although I hated his lack of morals and failure to be truthful. I don't agree with everything Bush, the current presiden does, but if I protest this in public, I am giving live ammunition to those who seek to destroy us. Perhaps we did start the Iraq war, for now lets go ahead and say we did. Iraq invade Kuwait, this is not fiction. In their greed, Iraq attacked an easy target for personal gain and who was there to protect them? Well America showed up and kicked Saddam's ass back to Iraq right? We could have had Iraq straightened out a lot faster except due to the fact that we willingly submitted to U.N. oversight, our mission for democracy and freedom for the people of Iraq was postponed for 12 years. In that time, many of the people of Iraq became extremely disenfranchised, they were so willing to surrender to the freedom of our jail cells rather than submit to the authority of a murderous dictatorship but we were foced to withdraw to see that things were done in the most sensible fashion. If I see a large boy hit a small girl I'm going to interfere even if I am not that boy's parent. Does this make me an evil satan worshipper? What's the difference in what we did with Iraq? Same with Vietnam and Korea, the little guy got picked on and we stepped in with great loss to our own assets. I'd gladly die for my country, but could you imagine dying for someone else's? Or say you live, but half of your comrades in arms were taken by whatever war you fought in and you have to live the rest of your life hearing their screams in your sleep at night and hearing people constantly badmouth YOU for sticking up for another civilization. As far as U.S. and Canadian relations, we're business partners. I see it as a bit more, we're long time neighbors and friends. You helped us gain our freedom and you have my personal thanks for that. I believe you also have troops on the field in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken, then rest assured that we appreciate their support. I feel a strong sense of pride that we've come so far, both civilized nations standing side-by-side without ever having to take up arms against eachother. Now as far as the politicians go, you're close, we need your resources and you need our money. Done deal, the transaction is made in the open, legally and with full support from both sides. Where's the problem? Our politicians may be arrogant, they might not care about you, but thats why they represent our budget and not our heart. At a time like this, where America is under quiet seige from terrorists and stressing out about wars abroad it's nice to know that if we get hit hard maybe Canada would watch our backs. And likewise, trust me! If your coastline was invaded it would take one phone call and you'd have so much support from the greatest military on earth that you wouldn't know where to fit them all. I know for damn sure we wouldn't sit idly by if you were ever hit, but if that never happens are you going to sit there and accuse us of wanting to take you over? That's ridiculous and I hope you rethink your logic because that's almost offensive.

We appreciate your input here, and your post illistrates what many of us here have been discussing...that American's are mislead and misinformed and lack general understanding of what is actually going on abroad. Your government does its best to make you feel that everything is warm and cozy in the name of national pride....criticism of your government's foreign policy by other nations can only be incorrect as the actions that your governments have taken abroad are completely justified. This is what the American people have been lead to believe.

[Insom Elvis]

I don't agree with everything Bush, the current presiden does, but if I protest this in public, I am giving live ammunition to those who seek to destroy us.

How thouroughly Un-American.

Really? Imagine being one of these fanatics who have nothing better to do with their time than sit in a cave, making new plans to destroy our society, but unsure wether or not they'll succeed. Then some idiot comes on the American news, flaming Bush and congress and political decisions, and sympathizing with terrorists. I don't see how that would help the welfare of this country.

. If I see a large boy hit a small girl I'm going to interfere even if I am not that boy's parent. Does this make me an evil satan worshipper? What's the difference in what we did with Iraq?

Analogies like that are appealing in their simplicity, but totally useless. For example, don't you find it odd that you had no problem helping that little boy when he was running around hitting other kids that you didn't like?

Who has America attacked that did not first initiate war on another country, one whom we were allied with or decided to murder civilians?

As far as U.S. and Canadian relations, we're business partners. I see it as a bit more, we're long time neighbors and friends. You helped us gain our freedom and you have my personal thanks for that.

Uh... do know one of the key groups that helped found Canada were the United Empire Loyalists: that is, people loyal to the Britsish Crown who fled your country after the Revolution?

What does this have to do with my statement?

At a time like this, where America is under quiet seige from terrorists and stressing out about wars abroad it's nice to know that if we get hit hard maybe Canada would watch our backs

Well, you'd probably ahve a lot less to stress about if your president wasn't starting uneccesary wars and making even more enemies in the one region in the world where your country can least afford it.

True, we don't need any more enemies, but we follow the conduct code set out by the U.N., we were much more successful in wartime when we didn't have to ask permission and sit on our asses for months or years to attack but hell we're doing things the right way, with full support from an international majority and you still attack our president? How is this his fault when he has to go through congress and they feel the need to ask for U.N. support, which is granted?

[YankAbroad]

Actually, I am having a real laugh these days. The anti-Americanism looks particularly comic in the face of everything going on in "Cartoon-gate" at the moment.

When the radicals in the Middle East showed such rage and hatred towards the Americans, we were informed that "we'd earned it by supporting Israel and all our military strength and cultural imperialism."

Now, however, they're taking aim at "mighty" Denmark, which can hardly be called a sponsor of Israel, a military power or a cultural juggernaut. And all the politically correct classes in Europe are absolutely shocked -- just shocked -- that the radicals who they've been defending so long as "righteously angry" at the Americans are suddenly venting such hatred towards THEM!

"But. . . but. . . but. . . we're nice! We're European! We don't like the Americans or Israelis, you're supposed to think the world of us!"

I suspect they'll be "coming around" to the "isolated American way of thinking" in short order. . . along with Canada.

[tml12]

Actually, I am having a real laugh these days. The anti-Americanism looks particularly comic in the face of everything going on in "Cartoon-gate" at the moment.

When the radicals in the Middle East showed such rage and hatred towards the Americans, we were informed that "we'd earned it by supporting Israel and all our military strength and cultural imperialism."

Now, however, they're taking aim at "mighty" Denmark, which can hardly be called a sponsor of Israel, a military power or a cultural juggernaut. And all the politically correct classes in Europe are absolutely shocked -- just shocked -- that the radicals who they've been defending so long as "righteously angry" at the Americans are suddenly venting such hatred towards THEM!

"But. . . but. . . but. . . we're nice! We're European! We don't like the Americans or Israelis, you're supposed to think the world of us!"

I suspect they'll be "coming around" to the "isolated American way of thinking" in short order. . . along with Canada.

Yank,

Another great post. I mean these people are friends of the anti-American left, right?

Canadians are being reluctantly pulled along into the 21st century...

[Black Dog]

Really? Imagine being one of these fanatics who have nothing better to do with their time than sit in a cave, making new plans to destroy our society, but unsure wether or not they'll succeed. Then some idiot comes on the American news, flaming Bush and congress and political decisions, and sympathizing with terrorists. I don't see how that would help the welfare of this country.

That's one well-appointed cave. Are they watching in HD?

Seriously: dissent and debate are the hallmarks of democracy. "flaming Bush and congress and political decisions" is not sympathizing with terrorists or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The people you are talking about, the Osama bin Ladens of the world, they don't care what Ted Keenedy or John Kerry says: these politicans are part of the decadent liberal west that must be destroyed. By suggesting that opponnents should just keep quiet, you are doing the "terrorists" work for them.

Who has America attacked that did not first initiate war on another country, one whom we were allied with or decided to murder civilians?

How far back do you wnat to go? Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Vietnam, Panama, Greneda...U.S. history is full of little "interventions" like these. That's not even getting into the rouge's gallery of regimes that the U.S. has supported.

What does this have to do with my statement?

You said "(Canada) helped us gain our freedom", which is historically inaccurate.

True, we don't need any more enemies, but we follow the conduct code set out by the U.N., we were much more successful in wartime when we didn't have to ask permission and sit on our asses for months or years to attack but hell we're doing things the right way, with full support from an international majority and you still attack our president? How is this his fault when he has to go through congress and they feel the need to ask for U.N. support, which is granted?

I'm not gonna get into a legalise argument about UN approval. The fact is, though, the UN doesn't really mean anything, which is why the U.S feeld free to disregard it when necessary, but can also turn to it (for example, by citing Saddam's vilation of UN resolutions) when their actions require the veneer of legitimacy.

I'm definitely curious about what "international majority" you're talking about.

[Insom Elvis]

Actually, I am having a real laugh these days. The anti-Americanism looks particularly comic in the face of everything going on in "Cartoon-gate" at the moment.

When the radicals in the Middle East showed such rage and hatred towards the Americans, we were informed that "we'd earned it by supporting Israel and all our military strength and cultural imperialism."

Now, however, they're taking aim at "mighty" Denmark, which can hardly be called a sponsor of Israel, a military power or a cultural juggernaut. And all the politically correct classes in Europe are absolutely shocked -- just shocked -- that the radicals who they've been defending so long as "righteously angry" at the Americans are suddenly venting such hatred towards THEM!

"But. . . but. . . but. . . we're nice! We're European! We don't like the Americans or Israelis, you're supposed to think the world of us!"

I suspect they'll be "coming around" to the "isolated American way of thinking" in short order. . . along with Canada.

No kidding, I'd like to see the looks on their faces now. I also noticed the protestors are burning flags, including the American flag, nothing new there but notice we're not all out in the streets burning buildings and whatnot.

That's one well-appointed cave. Are they watching in HD?

I doubt they have HD tv's in their caves, my mistake. I sure those who are in hiding would be reported to by someone lower on the political ladder who has access to a t.v.

Who has America attacked that did not first initiate war on another country, one whom we were allied with or decided to murder civilians?

How far back do you wnat to go? Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Vietnam, Panama, Greneda...U.S. history is full of little "interventions" like these. That's not even getting into the rouge's gallery of regimes that the U.S. has supported.

I could have sword Cuba had a tryannical dictator, North Vietnam engaged South Vietnam... Yes we've supported some nasty regimes, I don't know why and I don't like it, but I don't know all the details either. I know in the case of supporting Osama Bin Laden, that was key to disrupting the Soviet Union which posed a much larger threat to the U.S., and now we have to deal with a more powerful Taliban, but we don't have nukes hitting our cities.

What does this have to do with my statement?

You said "(Canada) helped us gain our freedom", which is historically inaccurate.

I have to admit my mistake here, I meant to say the French assisted us, and settled in Canada, showing the beginnings of Canada's alliance with the U.S.

I'm not gonna get into a legalise argument about UN approval. The fact is, though, the UN doesn't really mean anything, which is why the U.S feeld free to disregard it when necessary, but can also turn to it (for example, by citing Saddam's vilation of UN resolutions) when their actions require the veneer of legitimacy.

I'm definitely curious about what "international majority" you're talking about.

By international majority I mean when a majority of nations with U.N. involvement take the same side on a topic, like sending inspectors into Iraq. If the U.S. asked for approval from our allies to invade Spain becuase their bulls hurt people, we would not have approval from a majority, in fact many of these countries would probably interfere with such a move and take up arms against us. This obviously wasn't the case with Iraq, in fact I'd suspect some of the politicians that disapproved of our involvement there sleep a little better at night knowing Saddam isn't running around with any chemical weapons.

[Black Dog]

I could have sword Cuba had a tryannical dictator, North Vietnam engaged South Vietnam...

Cuba was originally a Spanish colonial posession invaded by the United States on the the pretext of "self-defence", but really because the Yanks wanted to become the sole power in the Americas. Vietnam, meanwhile, started as a anti-colonial rebellion against France and turned into a civil war: America's interest was curbing nationalistic tendencies: it had nothing to do with humanitarianism.

By international majority I mean when a majority of nations with U.N. involvement take the same side on a topic, like sending inspectors into Iraq. If the U.S. asked for approval from our allies to invade Spain becuase their bulls hurt people, we would not have approval from a majority, in fact many of these countries would probably interfere with such a move and take up arms against us. This obviously wasn't the case with Iraq, in fact I'd suspect some of the politicians that disapproved of our involvement there sleep a little better at night knowing Saddam isn't running around with any chemical weapons.

I staht why France, China, and Russia all voted against authorizing the use of force? (Oh and don't botehr telling me they did so for selfish reasons: that's self-evident. But it's makes me chuckle when certain right-wing types rail agaisnt Russian or French self-interest, yet deny thedecision to attack Iraq was motivated by the same impulses.)

[Insom Elvis]

Cuba was originally a Spanish colonial posession invaded by the United States on the the pretext of "self-defence", but really because the Yanks wanted to become the sole power in the Americas. Vietnam, meanwhile, started as a anti-colonial rebellion against France and turned into a civil war: America's interest was curbing nationalistic tendencies: it had nothing to do with humanitarianism.

Well, the U.S. was pretty freaked out about the U.S.S.R. installing nukes there, and rightly so, we also never took kindly to the way communist dictators did their business, they seem to execute people more frequently than they wash their hands after using the bathroom. There were dozens of reasons and excuses for going into Vietnam, if I had been president then, I would have most likely stayed out of it based on the fact that part of our reasoning was to assist the French as to asllow them to redploy in Germany and focus on thir civilian economics which didn't involve Vietnam at all. The only real reason I'd have for paying attention to the matter would be that China would have been a hell of a scary adversary and we didn't need a mini-China continuing the communism trend. I really can't argue your perspective on Vietnam and further beyond what I've said.

I staht why France, China, and Russia all voted against authorizing the use of force? (Oh and don't botehr telling me they did so for selfish reasons: that's self-evident. But it's makes me chuckle when certain right-wing types rail agaisnt Russian or French self-interest, yet deny thedecision to attack Iraq was motivated by the same impulses.)

Iraq is far different than Vietnam, Bush just came on the news today, adressing the progress of hybrid engines in autos and the direct effect of lessening our dependency on foreign oil. We may have fought harder because oil was a self interest, but that's not what made us want to invade. I doubt Kuwait enjoyed being showered in mustard gas, it's a no-brainer why we interfered there and even if it's not, I'd be pretty happy to send an American flag after that sorty of an invasion from Iraq. Maybe Bush woke up one day day and thought "I need oil, lets invade Iraq," and while we're at it let's protect innocents from murder in Kuwait... I'd still say we did some good. Besides it's not like we don't pay for the stuff, how do you think these sheiks are driving around the desert in limos? They're a bit more expensive than camels and last I heard, their water bottling company was a bit dried up.

[YankAbroad]

development and democracy are bad things tml

Well democracy isn't, de facto, a good thing in and of itself. Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected, after all.

Cuba was originally a Spanish colonial posession invaded by the United States on the the pretext of "self-defence", but really because the Yanks wanted to become the sole power in the Americas

You know, if we Yanks were half as bellicose and evil as you paint us, do you think Señor Fidel would be in power? Nah, the Marines would have gone in 10 minutes after the Soviet Union dissolved.

If we were evil, selfish and hell-bent on invasions to protect oil supplies, why would we bother going into Iraq, which is far away? We'd just head north and take what we wanted in Alberta for ourselves -- a couple hundred years's of oil supplies right in our backyard.

When I ask these questions to "Americans are imperialists" sorts, they always respond with "but there'd be world outrage!"

You think there isn't world outrage now?

If we were a quarter as evil as you claim, the Canadian government wouldn't be able to vehemently criticize the US government from a capital located 50 miles from the border. Simple old fact.

[Black Dog]

You know, if we Yanks were half as bellicose and evil as you paint us, do you think Señor Fidel would be in power? Nah, the Marines would have gone in 10 minutes after the Soviet Union dissolved.

Not neccesarily (thouh I'm sure the thought crossed a few minds). the united States is restrained by external consideations. For instance: if they invaded Cuba, they wouldn't have any moral high ground to stand on if China decided to invade Taiwan. No, they know Castro's old: his regime will go tothe grave with him and teh U.S. will work very quickly to restore Cuba to its former status as a U.S. proxy.

If we were evil, selfish and hell-bent on invasions to protect oil supplies, why would we bother going into Iraq, which is far away? We'd just head north and take what we wanted in Alberta for ourselves -- a couple hundred years's of oil supplies right in our backyard.

Because Iraq's oil is strategically located, situated as it is in close proximity to China and Russia.

When I ask these questions to "Americans are imperialists" sorts, they always respond with "but there'd be world outrage!"

You think there isn't world outrage now?

It has nothing to do with "world outrage". The U.S. is not omnipotent: even superpowers have limitations.

If we were a quarter as evil as you claim, the Canadian government wouldn't be able to vehemently criticize the US government from a capital located 50 miles from the border. Simple old fact.

First: I never said the United States was "evil".

Second: The foreign policy record of the United States speaks for itself: its actions are fairly typical of a powerful state working to first assert and then preserve its political, economic and military dominance. One needn't to resort to abstract metaphysical concepts like evil to describe it. It's interesting, too, that a self-described libertarian, anti-statist would mount a defence of statism by resorting to ridiculous hypotheical scenarios like the ones above. I guess the cultural drumbeat of American exceptionalism is hard to escape.

[YankAbroad]

It's interesting, too, that a self-described libertarian, anti-statist would mount a defence of statism by resorting to ridiculous hypotheical scenarios like the ones above

I'm simply popping your statist bubble which is, at its core, no different from people who blames Jews, gays or blacks for the world's problems.

If the USA was bent on global empire, Canada wouldn't exist, neither would Castro, and it wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions on the ground in Iraq. It also never would have allowed de Gaulle to snub NATO, etc., etc., etc.

I'm not defending US policies in that time, but pointing out the ridiculousness of the "America is an interventionist empire" religion.