I am not American...

[Black Dog]

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.

No: you're building a strawman. Again: I certainly never said America is an "evil empire"; I know we're not dealing with Genghis Khan here. But the U.S. has a history of interventionism. You can deny that if you want, but it is telling you choose to use "what ifs" and ignore that "what weres/ares".

[Black Dog]

YA: I don't know how you feel about the Cato institute, but I found this article on U.S. interventionism offers a very interesting perspective:

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention

Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.

[Zues]

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.

Insom Elvis, I too am an American and to tell you the truth by these comments of yours, you are obviously either very ill-informed about our heritage and form of government or badly Bush brainwashed... or both. I don't mean to be rude but you might want to consider our own "Declaration of Independence" from another King George and his empire...

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

As one who has been actively fighting Neoconservatism for 5 years now, I resent the indirect conclusion of your comments, of which most is just regurgitated Neocon Republican Party propanganda. The United States of American was never intended to be a meddling empire promoting world social-democratic hegemony. We're not even supposed to be a democracy! We're supposed to be a representative republic! And the only vestige of representative republicanism that is left is the electoral college.

Standing up to Bush's neoconservative push for social-democratic hegemony is NOT treachery... it is NOT not supporting our troops... quite the contrary... to not demand that this administration be completely transparent on all issues is unpatriotic and servile!

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." "Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149 May 7, 1918

The truth of the matter is that Saddam Hussien, like Osama bin Ladin, was in large part made possible due to OUR government making them possible! We trained them, we armed them and we used them until we no longer had use of them. Much of what is taking place in the world today is the result of OUR failed Middle East policy!

If our land is under such a severe and real threat then why doesn't Devious Dubya control our borders and throw out illegals? Why does he insist on blackmailing the American people into accepting his "guest worker amnesty" BEFORE fixing the insane "catch and release" program for all OTMs? (other than Mexican) You'd do well to take the blinders off and take a good, long, hard look around and stop living in Bushworld invented reality.

[Insom Elvis]

I like that quote by T.R., and I'm not opposed to the logic, but if there isn't a better way to get our president in line, we're showing potential threats that we're not so united as a country. I'm sure Bush makes mistakes, I wouldn't follow him or anyone else blindly, but I'm sure he knows a lot more of what's going on than me, and I'm sure he can do his job better than I can. The best I can do is voice my opinion to my representative and hope that my concerns, along with similar concers from many others makes it up the political chain. Puplic protests are fine, they show that free speech is still alive and well, but there's a big difference between public protest of an action made by our leaders, and the alternative of protestors being aired on every channel, bad-mouthing our governement 24-7. I agree that we used Osama Bin Laden to do our dirty work, but he used us for resources to fight his personal war against our mutual enemies, so I can hardly say he's a victim. We may be part of the cause of the current problems involving his position with the U.S., well with the free world as we know it, but I doubt the fact that he's an irate extremist makes matters any better. I hope this sheds some light on what I'm trying to explain, I have no doubt that you will continue to find arguments against my perspective, but I most certainly am not blinded or brainwashed by Bush. If you want to see blinded and brainwashed, elect a supermodel into office and we'll talk.

[Zues]

I like that quote by T.R., and I'm not opposed to the logic, but if there isn't a better way to get our president in line, we're showing potential threats that we're not so united as a country. I'm sure Bush makes mistakes, I wouldn't follow him or anyone else blindly, but I'm sure he knows a lot more of what's going on than me, and I'm sure he can do his job better than I can. The best I can do is voice my opinion to my representative and hope that my concerns, along with similar concers from many others makes it up the political chain. Puplic protests are fine, they show that free speech is still alive and well, but there's a big difference between public protest of an action made by our leaders, and the alternative of protestors being aired on every channel, bad-mouthing our governement 24-7. I agree that we used Osama Bin Laden to do our dirty work, but he used us for resources to fight his personal war against our mutual enemies, so I can hardly say he's a victim. We may be part of the cause of the current problems involving his position with the U.S., well with the free world as we know it, but I doubt the fact that he's an irate extremist makes matters any better. I hope this sheds some light on what I'm trying to explain, I have no doubt that you will continue to find arguments against my perspective, but I most certainly am not blinded or brainwashed by Bush. If you want to see blinded and brainwashed, elect a supermodel into office and we'll talk.

I don’t think that the “enemy” has ever considered us a united country. And I didn’t mean for you or anyone else to think that I was painting either Saddam or Osama as victims. The point was that we… as a nation… have to come to grips with who made those two possible.

While I agree that it’s best to first voice your opinion through your elected representative I have to question whether or not it is worth the trouble any more. Bush would not have been able to do half of what he has done without a complicit Congressional branch that preferred to capitulate its duty to the American public.

There is a preponderance of evidence that proves this administration “cherry picked” much of the so-called proof that it used to make its case for war. Even Bush’s own words indicate that. I made the right decision based on the faulty information… give me a break. This social-democratic world hegemony is breaking the economic back of our nation. There were many other options that we could have chosen. The neocons wanted this war and they got it and now… more likely than not… we’re going to invade Syria and Iran as well. And I swear to you Insom Elvis… if I hear another damn neocon tell us that it’s going to be a cakewalk… well… best I don’t say it.

I cannot for the life of me see what Americans see in Bush. Even you… who does not appear to fit the “Bushbot automaton” definition… still voice outrage at Clinton, FIVE YEARS, after he’s out of office! I ask you… is there anyone to whom bush has not lied? He ran as a conservative… he’s more to the left than Clinton would ever have dared to be! He said he was a uniter not a divider… he’s divided this nation more than at anytime since the Vietnam war! He’s overseen the biggest federal budget deficit in the HISTORY OF MANKIND! His continued servility to the Corporamerican globalist elitist class is ruining our middle and lower classes! On one hand he stands before the nation and fear mongers saying things like “mushroom clouds over America” and on the other hand refuses to do anything at all about the wide opened borders unless the American public accepts his “guest worker amnesty non-amnesty program! More than four years after 9/11! Doesn’t that make you even the least bit suspicious of the validity of the threat? What am I missing here? If you look at it like you do Clinton and Monica and Clinton’s commitment to his marriage… is it possible that Bush’s commitment to his Corporamerican Puppet masters is greater than his commitment to protect this nation?

He has stomped all over the Constitution and even had the nerve to refer to it as that G-d damn piece of paper! And that doesn’t bother you? Oh… and again he flubbed it… because the constitution is written on parchment!

I can’t understand this blind loyalty to Bush and his administration. I just cannot. Hell… I don’t think a supermodel could do much worse and she’d at least be a hell of a lot easier on the eyes!

[tml12]

I am not a fan of Bush...but I am no Democrat either.

The problem with Bush is that he is stubborn, short sighted, and not schoolded in foreign affairs.

The problem with the Dems is that all they can agree on is abortion.

Abramoff claims he met with Bush 14 times and what do the Dems say? We're pro-choice!!!

I am not saying I'm not pro-choice. What I am saying is the top executive Dems from different parts of the country need to get together and put together a platform that can at least incorporate something that will make a difference in the States.

They more they bitch at each other, the longer the Republicans will remain in complete control of all three branches of government in DC.

[Zues]

I am not a fan of Bush...but I am no Democrat either.

The problem with Bush is that he is stubborn, short sighted, and not schoolded in foreign affairs.

The problem with the Dems is that all they can agree on is abortion.

Abramoff claims he met with Bush 14 times and what do the Dems say? We're pro-choice!!!

I am not saying I'm not pro-choice. What I am saying is the top executive Dems from different parts of the country need to get together and put together a platform that can at least incorporate something that will make a difference in the States.

They more they bitch at each other, the longer the Republicans will remain in complete control of all three branches of government in DC.

Boy... did you just hit a homerun tml12! That short-sighted bit is running through the whole neoconservative part of the Republican party. That's why anyone that doesn't speak in glowing terms of Bush is automatically labeled a "liberal" or a "democrat." Come November the Republicans are going to learn yet again that back-stabbing the right in this country carries a price when both the Christian and patriotic right stays home or votes third party!

[moderateamericain]

I wouldnt even mind bush that much if he didnt spend like a liberal

[Zues]

I wouldnt even mind bush that much if he didnt spend like a liberal

But he is a liberal! He's a socialist-democrat globalist! There are some issues that the Dems don't care for... but hell... they can't stand Liberman for some of the same things. Doesn't neoconservatism have its roots in Trokskyist socialism? Let's face it... the U.S. is socialist! Like it or not.

[tml12]

I wouldnt even mind bush that much if he didnt spend like a liberal

That's the neo-con...AKA big-government conservative movement...and that is the problem.

[Zues]

I wouldnt even mind bush that much if he didnt spend like a liberal

That's the neo-con...AKA big-government conservative movement...and that is the problem.

DITTO!

[tml12]

I wouldnt even mind bush that much if he didnt spend like a liberal

That's the neo-con...AKA big-government conservative movement...and that is the problem.

DITTO!

Yeah I back you there...

[speaker]

Zues said that Bush and the upper class are ruining the middle and lower classes. then he added this

But he is a liberal! He's a socialist-democrat globalist! There are some issues that the Dems don't care for... but hell... they can't stand Liberman for some of the same things. Doesn't neoconservatism have its roots in Trokskyist socialism? Let's face it... the U.S. is socialist! Like it or not.

First off I was taught that the very idea of classes was anti- American, and now I'm told that America is not only classy but socialist to boot. Well live and learn I always say. If there wasn't the spin there wouldn't be anything.

I know I know consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds but on the other hand it does help in arguments.

[YankAbroad]

Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts

I certainly agree with some of the content of the article, but I also find it ironic that Canada -- which usually directly benefits from US policies without having to invest in their execution -- would condemn those actions which have ensured US power (and thus a healthy market for Canadian goods and services). Canada is, after all, essentially an export-to-America economy.

I was taught that the very idea of classes was anti- American, and now I'm told that America is not only classy but socialist to boot

Certainly, both US political parties are socialist -- President Bush being the most extreme socialist to ever be elected to office in the country's history.

[Zues]

Zues said that Bush and the upper class are ruining the middle and lower classes. then he added this

But he is a liberal! He's a socialist-democrat globalist! There are some issues that the Dems don't care for... but hell... they can't stand Liberman for some of the same things. Doesn't neoconservatism have its roots in Trokskyist socialism? Let's face it... the U.S. is socialist! Like it or not.

First off I was taught that the very idea of classes was anti- American, and now I'm told that America is not only classy but socialist to boot. Well live and learn I always say. If there wasn't the spin there wouldn't be anything.

I know I know consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds but on the other hand it does help in arguments.

Wow! I feel so humbled. I don’t know whether to cry or bow down and worship… perhaps both.

Please don’t take offense that one of the possessors of a “small mind” would dare to suggest that perhaps you need to ask those who TELL you that the idea of classes is anti-American to explain their use of the word “class.” I dare to suggest that in the hope that after having a fuller understanding of just what they mean… they being those that “tell you” and/or “teach you”… you’d humble yourself enough to explain it to all of us of smaller minds, because every study that I’ve ever tried to read and understand… without much luck as you can well see… always defines members of certain social stratum that share certain economic, social and/or cultural characteristics as “class or classes.” Thus lower class, middle class, and upper class.

How anyone could believe that any nation… be it communist, socialist, capitalist, or any number of other “ist” and/or combinations of them it might be… could be entirely and wholly without divisions of “class” in some way shape or form… is beyond me! And I don’t mean to suggest that one such as yourself… of such obviously superior intellect… would be stupid enough to buy into that.

But since you’ve deigned to respond and point out the flaws, to others, in the comments of a smaller mind… perhaps you’d be good enough to explain to me… and others… exactly what type of political philosophy is it that condones the government seize the product of one’s labor, through coercion and under threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties, in order to redistribute the wealth that was seized through coercion and under threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties, to others that it deems more worthy or more in need of the wealth of another that was seized through governmental coercion and under the threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties? Communism? Socialism? Some type of social-democracy or even maybe some transitional form of a mixture of socialism and capitalism… socialist-capitalism… perhaps?

[YankAbroad]

It's interesting -- I know neoconservatives who fervently insist that the USA is a classless society, and then barely minutes later talk proudly of their desire to amend the US Constitution to ensure that gay people will never, ever have their rights under the equal protection clause of the Constitution upheld.

They don't see the contradiction, which is bizarre.

[tml12]

It's interesting -- I know neoconservatives who fervently insist that the USA is a classless society, and then barely minutes later talk proudly of their desire to amend the US Constitution to ensure that gay people will never, ever have their rights under the equal protection clause of the Constitution upheld.

They don't see the contradiction, which is bizarre.

Especially when Chaney said in 2000 that it's a "states rights" issue

[YankAbroad]

I view the whole "federal versus state" issue to be a red herring.

It doesn't matter if the big government which steals our money and denies us our freedoms is based in the national capital or the state/provincial capital (or even in city hall).

[Insom Elvis]

All I can say is wow, and I wish I had the time to take all these posts in and comment, but by the time I read the last one, the first few might as well be last week's shopping list. TM12 said something I can agree with, concerning Bush's setbacks. And Zeus, I can agree that I was a lot more optimistic about his temr in the beginning than I am now. I don't think Bush necessicarily is a divider, because I would define a divider as someone who intentionally divides. I'd say that because he's tried so hard to win both sides of the fence, he's left himself split down the middle instead. I see Iran and Syria as possibly being part of an agenda, or overall plan. Talk to someone involved in the ongoing battles in Israel or Lebanon and they've seen it coming a hell of a lot longer than we have. Zeus, you mentioned the ineffectiveness of swaying the direction of politics by pleading to our representatives... You have a point, but does anyone have a solution? Or do we wait out the term, hoping that either side of the bi-partisanship develops a strong enough platform to make a change before we're immersed in total war with all of Arabia?

[speaker]

Zues said that Bush and the upper class are ruining the middle and lower classes. then he added this

But he is a liberal! He's a socialist-democrat globalist! There are some issues that the Dems don't care for... but hell... they can't stand Liberman for some of the same things. Doesn't neoconservatism have its roots in Trokskyist socialism? Let's face it... the U.S. is socialist! Like it or not.

First off I was taught that the very idea of classes was anti- American, and now I'm told that America is not only classy but socialist to boot. Well live and learn I always say. If there wasn't the spin there wouldn't be anything.

I know I know consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds but on the other hand it does help in arguments.

Wow! I feel so humbled. I don’t know whether to cry or bow down and worship… perhaps both.

Please don’t take offense that one of the possessors of a “small mind” would dare to suggest that perhaps you need to ask those who TELL you that the idea of classes is anti-American to explain their use of the word “class.” I dare to suggest that in the hope that after having a fuller understanding of just what they mean… they being those that “tell you” and/or “teach you”… you’d humble yourself enough to explain it to all of us of smaller minds, because every study that I’ve ever tried to read and understand… without much luck as you can well see… always defines members of certain social stratum that share certain economic, social and/or cultural characteristics as “class or classes.” Thus lower class, middle class, and upper class.

How anyone could believe that any nation… be it communist, socialist, capitalist, or any number of other “ist” and/or combinations of them it might be… could be entirely and wholly without divisions of “class” in some way shape or form… is beyond me! And I don’t mean to suggest that one such as yourself… of such obviously superior intellect… would be stupid enough to buy into that.

But since you’ve deigned to respond and point out the flaws, to others, in the comments of a smaller mind… perhaps you’d be good enough to explain to me… and others… exactly what type of political philosophy is it that condones the government seize the product of one’s labor, through coercion and under threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties, in order to redistribute the wealth that was seized through coercion and under threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties, to others that it deems more worthy or more in need of the wealth of another that was seized through governmental coercion and under the threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties? Communism? Socialism? Some type of social-democracy or even maybe some transitional form of a mixture of socialism and capitalism… socialist-capitalism… perhaps?

There's these socialist type educational programs called anger management studies...

You want to know what I call a government that does all of that to it's hard working "middle class"? that depends on who it is that is benefitting from the governments largesse. Since Bush and his government are the pawns of the puppet master corporamerica I don't really think that the lucky "lower class" is going to be rolling in your hard earned cash. A socialist government would be one that cares enough about said lower class to assist it. When the effort and direction of the aid is for the benefit of the presidents buddies, or string pullers, socialism doesn't enter into it anywhere.

Unless of course you think that providing jobs at the front lines in foreign nations is assistance.

[Black Dog]

I certainly agree with some of the content of the article, but I also find it ironic that Canada -- which usually directly benefits from US policies without having to invest in their execution -- would condemn those actions which have ensured US power (and thus a healthy market for Canadian goods and services). Canada is, after all, essentially an export-to-America economy.

That's a bit of a non sequitur. Certainly Canada has blood on its hands (its support of the last Haitian coup is but one example). But I'm not really sure how that's germane to this subject.

[August1991]

Michael Ignatieff:

Over cold nachos, the world-renowned academic offered a sharp critique of his party and its recent tactics.

"We've got to stop this trite and shallow anti-Americanism" and avoid negative campaigning, he said.

"Our campaign ads were a disgrace, an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian voter. We went negative and we had no business doing that. We can't do that again.

"We should appeal to the best in Canadians and not the worst."

London Free Press

Trite and shallow? Anti-Americanism? Huh?

[newbie]

Michael Ignatieff:

Over cold nachos, the world-renowned academic offered a sharp critique of his party and its recent tactics.

"We've got to stop this trite and shallow anti-Americanism" and avoid negative campaigning, he said.

"Our campaign ads were a disgrace, an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian voter. We went negative and we had no business doing that. We can't do that again.

"We should appeal to the best in Canadians and not the worst."

London Free Press

Trite and shallow? Anti-Americanism? Huh?

One man's opinion.

[August1991]

One man's opinion.

Newbie, it is too easy to click on "Reply" and copy a post, doubling or tripling the length of a thread.

You would be wiser to click on the posted link and read what Ignatieff said, in full. Then, you could go to the start of this thread and read what is posted there.

Newbie: Sarcasm is direct; irony requires an audience.

[newbie]

Not sure what your point is August. I read the article and disagreed with his opinion.