Canadians insult America (again)

[Rue]

I dont think that necessarily because canadian and US soldiers are fighting the 'alleged' war on terror it is to simply protect our 'life style'. Rather, it is to MAINTAIN our lifestyle as 'leading'core countries into the future when resources get scarce due to growing demand. More so however, it is to broaden and strengthen the core countries ability through military might to shape these peripheral countries for their use, but far more so in and for the upper echelons of core societies as opposed to a concern with the core countries masses -us (other than to maintain contentment).

Exactly what "scarce resource" did Afghanistan have that we need to "maintain our lifestyle"?

Indirect strategic positioning to allow oil to flow through pipelines through their country without the Taliban blowing it up. Afghanistan itself, has nothing but poppies. But its position in relation to oil is why it is in the West's sights. If oil pipelines wouldn;t be running through it, I am sure no one would give a rat's asp.

[Rue]

On another note, I find it intellectually lazy to try rationalize terrorism as a legitimate reaction or a causal effect of/ to colonialism or neo-colonialism.

I think we owe our students more analysis and insight then simply to try portray terrorists as victims of George Bush.

For example, last night it was absolutely juvenile for the President of Venezuela and his giggling audience to refer to Bush as the Devil.

Bush may represent a foreign policy or cultural perspective that many of us openly question, but it is abslutely idiotic to simply dismiss it as evil. This same evil employs as many millions as it oppresses. There are two sides to every story and if one wants to criticize the weakness in American foreign policy it has to be done with a little more care then simplistic rhetoric and name calling designed simply to appeal to primal frustrations that flow from being poor.

Scapegoating the US for local coruption and the domestic internal savagery in many nations is good for domestic political consumption but its b.s. Yes maybe multi-nationalism oppresses but so do the same leaders acting all self-righteous and pointing the finger at Bush. This fool from Venezuela is typical of todays' leaders. They are quick to piss in Bush's direction to hide their own disasterous economic policies. In Venezuela's case, you can not blame the IMF or America for the currentstate of its economy.

[Higgly]

Which saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, and about 250,000 American lives.

My my. That many. Imagine how many they would have saved by dropping it out in the middle of the harbour where it would have killed few but given a good demonstration of their power.

[Wilber]

Which saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, and about 250,000 American lives.

My my. That many. Imagine how many they would have saved by dropping it out in the middle of the harbour where it would have killed few but given a good demonstration of their power.

Easy to say from this point in history. You are talking about two generations who together went through the two most destructive wars in human history in a period of just 30 years. You are talking about ending a war that lasted six years and took 50 million lives with niceties. Do you really think the people who went through it gave a shit except for the fact that it was over and it was the other side that had to do the dieing in the end? I'll bet you didn't hear any complaints from any of the allies when those bombs were dropped and ended the war.

[Remiel]

I reject many accusations of juvenility on the basis that the " mature " ones are hacks and criminals at least as often. What passes for being " grown up " or " adult " doesn't impress me nearly as much as it used to.

[Rue]

Further to my ealier comments the Venezuelan President when to a church in Harlem and referred to Bush as an alcoholic. In so doing he revealed himself as a crass thug. If the emerging non aligned nations are to be taken seriously and if they want to seriously get the attention of the first world as to the unfair economic practices of the International Monetary Fund, etc., engaging in this kind of childish bafoonery is not the way to do it.

Bush may have a lot of warts and his foreign and economic policies may be questionable, but insulting the man and attacking him personally is childish. You can't get the U.S. or any nation to take you seriously when you act like a baboon.

Even democrat congressmen and senators who openly criticize Bush were saying enough is enough with this clod from Venezuela.

In the meantime Venezuela's economy is a complete disaster and its domestic policies have nothing to do with Bush but this bafoon who fancies himself another Castro but unlike Castro does not have his intelligence.

[geoffrey]

Indirect strategic positioning to allow oil to flow through pipelines through their country without the Taliban blowing it up. Afghanistan itself, has nothing but poppies. But its position in relation to oil is why it is in the West's sights. If oil pipelines wouldn;t be running through it, I am sure no one would give a rat's asp.

That's pretty much just a bunch of left field mutterings, the whole concept of the pipeline being secure.

We (Canadian resource companies) have pipelines and full operations through Yemen, Kuwaitt, Iran, Sudan, Libya... the list goes on. Afghanistan pre-intervention was a relatively more secure place than most of those countries. That argument doesn't hold an ounce of water.

[Rue]

That's pretty much just a bunch of left field mutterings, the whole concept of the pipeline being secure.

We (Canadian resource companies) have pipelines and full operations through Yemen, Kuwaitt, Iran, Sudan, Libya... the list goes on. Afghanistan pre-intervention was a relatively more secure place than most of those countries. That argument doesn't hold an ounce of water.

Oh now Geoffrey here is your ounce of water not from left leaning mutters but the CIA and US Department of energy;

The KGB during the Soviet occupation, estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves are approximately five trillion cubic feet. In the mid-1970s, production had reached as high 275 million cubic feet per day.

Afghanistan's relation to the balance of energy and power in Central Asia clearly is inter-related to its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea and both the U.S. State Department and public articles published by the CIA have said the same.

We should not forget that in early January of 1998, an agreement was signed between Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the Taliban to arrange funding of an 890-mile,natural gas pipeline project estimated to cost about 2 billion in US dollars.

That proposed pipeline would have moved natural gas from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad natural gas field to Pakistan, and would have run from Dauletabad in a southerly direction to the Afghan border, through the areas of Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan.

This line would have also linked Pakistan's natural gas grid at Sui.

Unocal a U.S. oil conglamorate (with ties to the Bush family of course) was to finance the bulk of the project.

Unocal renaged of course due to political instability.

Unocal according to is public relations info had also been thinking of building a 1,000-mile oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan with Pakistan's Arabian Sea coast via Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is of course a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.

Now come on let's get real. The Caspian Sea region has oil and gas resources estimated at 4 trillion, if you believe the U.S. News and World Report which is of course a right wing magazine and not some left wing muttering source.

We also know the oil and gas from the Caspean region currently moves northward towards European markets..

An advantage of using an Afghan route, would be that such a pipeline would terminate in the Arabian Sea, which would of course be much closer to key Asian markets.

Such a pipeline would be great for the interests of U.S. oil corporations because it would allow them to sell their oil to the Asian market and that means China, Japan and India, not to mention South Korea and so they would get a hell of a lot more money for their oil then they get now in the European market.

So the question is, how do you build this pipeline if Afghanistan if it is run by Taliban or other angry people with beards. Not good for business.

So part of what we see today is an attempt to turn Afghanistan into a Western puppet nation to enable it to be safe for the oil pipelines to run through it.

Come on let us get real its always about oil. If Afghanistan had no strategic importance for future pipe-lines the US and for that matter Russia would have cared less about it.

I personally think fighting terrorists is a pretense, If we were just fighting terrorists we would be in and out of Afghanistan with strategic precision attacks and not trying to prop up a "democratic" government which to me is a euphenism for a friendly client state.

[Fortunata]

Going into Afghanistan was a "must do" regardless of natural resources because Bush HAD TO respond to OBL's attacks. Iraq tho' was another whole matter. One thing has to be said about this prez is that he sure knows how to get the masses going. He talked, talked, talked and the Americans just fell into a chanting line of parrotdom. He should have been a televangilist.

[ft.niagara]

There are a portion of Canadians LIKE Americans who believe US foreign policy incites Muslims into committing acts of terror. People with these beliefs whether they be Canadian or American, should not and can not simply be lumped in a category as being anti-American.

There might be some truth that acting incites them, but 911 showed that reacting is not always the best policy either. Sending a cruse missle at an asprin factory as Clinton did sent a message of incompetence, and fear. If to object at a people's right to self preservation is not ANTI..., what else is it?

[jefferiah]

did you read the artice or just the headline? I'd be very surprised if Americans didn't think the exact same thing.

Why do you think the US was attacked? Because they hate your freedom? (snicker)

Yes, I read the article, lose your condescending attitude smart *ss.

Why would you think we believe that we are to blame for radical Islamic fanatics attacking and killing 3,000 of our civilians without warning or provocation?

I think we were attacked b/c

- We defend Israel's right to exist.

- Islamic fundamentalists want to wage a jihad against those who are not Muslim.

- Our culture is in contrast to much of what these fundamentalists believe in (we give women equal right, have many progressive ideas and cultural norms compared to these 12 century throw backs, we do business with many of their gvts that they dislike, etc).

But mainly, I don't give a flying sh*t b/c none of the reasons justify sneak attacking us without warning on innocent civilians. For Canadians to say it OUR fault for being attacked is pathetic and speaks volumes about Canadians. Once again, Canadians prove that they are not our friends and will use almost any chance to try and rip us.

Good point. I am a Canadian and I think it is condescending and insulting for a Canadian to tell an American its their fault. Agreed. I dont always agree with America on everything either. But that was pretty rude, and I think Canadians can be pretty rude to America. Its like people blaming Israel for defending itself. Move to northern Israel and tell me you dont support the attacks against Hezbollah. Even many Arabic Israelis in Northern Israel supported Israel.

[jefferiah]

There are a portion of Canadians LIKE Americans who believe US foreign policy incites Muslims into committing acts of terror. People with these beliefs whether they be Canadian or American, should not and can not simply be lumped in a category as being anti-American.

There might be some truth that acting incites them, but 911 showed that reacting is not always the best policy either. Sending a cruse missle at an asprin factory as Clinton did sent a message of incompetence, and fear. If to object at a people's right to self preservation is not ANTI..., what else is it?

This is a good point as well. The fact that people question internationally , or do not agree with Bush does not make them anti-American. From the leftists I cant stand the over use of the race, gender or whatever cards, and the neocons have their you hate America or Israel. However, I have seen a lot of rude Canadian comments toward Americans, that go beyond questioning American policies and are quite superior and pompous sounding, that it doesnt surprise me when Americans get a little pissed at us too.

[ft.niagara]

Iraq tho' was another whole matter. One thing has to be said about this prez is that he sure knows how to get the masses going. He talked, talked, talked and the Americans just fell into a chanting line of parrotdom. He should have been a televangilist.

I was in the NY National Guard at the time of 911 and saw it first hand. This was the use of a weapon of mass distruction. The only way to top it would be to use a WMD. If there was credible intelligence that such and such had such and such, it is the RESPONSABILITY of the PRESIDENT to act according to his oath of office. The 911 commission was just a bunch of second guessers. Can you imagine the second guessing if a nuclear bomb or chemical attack (remember anthrax? remember SARS?). Televangelist? BS. Again, whose country was attacked, or likely to be attacked again. But if you are real NICE, and criticize the US real hard, you will be nice and safe.

Furthermore, since it is a national sport to criticize Bush, I would like to comment on Cretian (sp?). I guess the guy had a stroke to one side of his face, but he certainly was not someone who I would ever have voted for, yet there he was the leader of CANADA with one big hard on for the US. I think his big claim to fame was his French name, and his French heritage and language skills, but it certainly was not his leadership in a crisis.

[Black Dog]

was in the NY National Guard at the time of 911 and saw it first hand. This was the use of a weapon of mass distruction. The only way to top it would be to use a WMD. If there was credible intelligence that such and such had such and such, it is the RESPONSABILITY of the PRESIDENT to act according to his oath of office. The 911 commission was just a bunch of second guessers. Can you imagine the second guessing if a nuclear bomb or chemical attack (remember anthrax? remember SARS?). Televangelist? BS. Again, whose country was attacked, or likely to be attacked again. But if you are real NICE, and criticize the US real hard, you will be nice and safe.

So attacking a country that had nowt to do with the attacks was a sensible response?

Furthermore, since it is a national sport to criticize Bush, I would like to comment on Cretian (sp?). I guess the guy had a stroke to one side of his face, but he certainly was not someone who I would ever have voted for, yet there he was the leader of CANADA with one big hard on for the US. I think his big claim to fame was his French name, and his French heritage and language skills, but it certainly was not his leadership in a crisis

Chrétien's facial paralysis was caused by Bell's palsy, not a stroke. Also: what the hell are you talking about?

[Remiel]

That was in no way shape or form a weapon of mass destruction. September 11th wasn't any more tragic than countless other similar occassions in history. I refuse to do a disservice to others who have died by suggesting otherwise.

[Figleaf]

Okay, so the headline uses the word "Blame", yet the text says......

A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks......

Before passing judgement on anyone, I would be interested to hear EXACTLY how the question was phrased.

I mean, if people were asked "What factors do you feel contributed to the 9/11 attacks; choose 1 of the following.....

1) American foreign policy

2) The north American auto industry

3) The environment

......then it's pretty much a question loaded to lead to a specific end.

Yes, I deliberately made the alternatives ludicrous, but that was simply to illustrate the point that a poll can be designed to deliberately come up with a specific result.

Secondly, I would be interested to know who exactly hired the polling firm to conduct this so called "research".

Until we know the answer to these questions, the poll itself is meaningless.

Sorry to throw a damper on the more passionate arguments this thread has generated.

So true. What gives with the media. Why are they totally incapable of playing straight? This headline was a complete distortion and some editor somewhere knew that and let it go. Journalism has become and industry of hysteria and fictional fabrication. If a CEO, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a financial planner, or an engineer were caught uttering such blatant BS she'd be cooked. Not so the media, the self-appointed 'fourth estate' guardians of "truth and the public interest".

Scumbags.

And polls! There oughta be a law ... any publication of poll results MUST include the actually text of the questions and the specific reponse data for each question. Penalty for breach should be a sound public flogging.

[ft.niagara]

Chrétien's facial paralysis was caused by Bell's palsy, not a stroke. Also: what the hell are you talking about?

Bell's palsy is a temporary issue. His seemed perminent. Wasn't it a member of his cabinet who made fun of Bush? Or was it Martin's? I think neither past Premiers would have been inspirational in a crisis. I can not understand how Chretien ever was elected by the Canadian voters. Bush has tried to rise to the crisis at hand. Hind sight is 20/20. The attacking a country which had nothing to do with the attack is bogus, because who knew at the time. Iraq had long ago thrown out the inspectors. They played the shell game when they (inspectors) were there. The thought that this was not a poor man's weapon of mass distruction is also bogus. Chemical weapons would be expected to produce deaths in the thousands also, and they are considered the definition of a poor mans weapon of mass distruction.

[ft.niagara]

September 11th wasn't any more tragic than countless other similar occassions in history. I refuse to do a disservice to others who have died by suggesting otherwise.

Name a similar occasion.

What disservice to others who have died. What are you talking about?

I have been referring to 911 as a defining moment in history, upon which many events have followed. To understand the events which follow (American response), you have to understand the effect of 911 on America. In a similar way, to understand the foundations of the start of WWII, you have to study the after effects of WWI on Germany.

Any death is tragic

[Figleaf]

Chemical weapons would be expected to produce deaths in the thousands also, and they are considered the definition of a poor mans weapon of mass distruction.

Tough luck for Saddam that his WMDs were totally imaginary.

Wait! That's it. Saddam's chemical weapons were all in Bush's head -- i.e. Bush had chemicals on his brain! That explains a lot.

[Remiel]

You were comparing the September 11th attacks to weapons of mass destruction, which is ludicrous, and so I concluded that you seemed to be trying to raise the scope of the attack beyond what actually happened.

If New York had been hit with a real weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, the response would of been swifter, more brutal, even savage, and there would of probably been a lot less complaining.

And if 9/11 was a defining moment in history, I would have to say the U.S. has been defined very poorly indeed.

[ft.niagara]

And if 9/11 was a defining moment in history, I would have to say the U.S. has been defined very poorly indeed.

Blaa Blaa Blaa. Go back to your booing, and flag burning. Oh, and Ontari-ari-ari-o that Eh you tack on to everything seems so quaint and contrived. Kind of like saying Ok all the time.

[Black Dog]

Bell's palsy is a temporary issue. His seemed perminent.

"In his youth, he suffered an attack of Bell's palsy, leaving the left side of his face permanently paralyzed. "-Wikipedia

Wasn't it a member of his cabinet who made fun of Bush? Or was it Martin's? I think neither past Premiers would have been inspirational in a crisis.

Wow, you're really wowing us with your knowledge of Canada here.

I can not understand how Chretien ever was elected by the Canadian voters.

I suppose it would have been better if the Supreme Court appointed him?

Blaa Blaa Blaa. Go back to your booing, and flag burning. Oh, and Ontari-ari-ari-o that Eh you tack on to everything seems so quaint and contrived. Kind of like saying Ok all the time.

Goodnight everybody!

[Remiel]

If you had actually been paying any attention to my posts in other threads, you should have remembered I don't believe in booing other peoples anthems and flag burning. It only requires a minimal amount of respect for others.

[jbg]

Chemical weapons would be expected to produce deaths in the thousands also, and they are considered the definition of a poor mans weapon of mass distruction.

Tough luck for Saddam that his WMDs were totally imaginary.

Wait! That's it. Saddam's chemical weapons were all in Bush's head -- i.e. Bush had chemicals on his brain! That explains a lot.

He spouted enough about them, and dug his own grave (or hole he was found in).

[ft.niagara]

It only requires a minimal amount of respect for others.

What, not to boo or flag burn?