Americans insult Canadians

[gc1765]

The civilized world should consider Afghanistan and Iraq one enterprise. Maybe, as a practical matter the US supplies the coordination (and transportation for Canadian troops) but in no sense should it be considered solely a "US" operation.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I don't want to respond in case I am misintrepreting what you are saying.

[Remiel]

The " civilized world " should absolutely under no circumstances consider Afghanistan and Iraq the same endeavor. One was started for some of the right reasons, the other for all of the wrong ones.

[bradco]

Afghanistan and Iraq are completly different battles fought for completly different reasons. Clearly are not the same battle and should not be treated as such.

[jbg]

The civilized world should consider Afghanistan and Iraq one enterprise. Maybe, as a practical matter the US supplies the coordination (and transportation for Canadian troops) but in no sense should it be considered solely a "US" operation.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I don't want to respond in case I am misintrepreting what you are saying.

What I mean is that that part of the world is spinning off repated and dangerous situations that pose either distant or immediate threats to civilized lands.

[gc1765]

What I mean is that that part of the world is spinning off repated and dangerous situations that pose either distant or immediate threats to civilized lands.

If anything, Canada is under more of a threat of being attacked now, because we are in afghanistan, then we were before we helped out your country in afghanistan. So why do you seem to be implying that Canadians are freeloading when it is us that put ourselves in jeopardy to help your country (not that I am opposed to helping out our neighbor & ally).

[Who's Doing What?]

The civilized world should consider Afghanistan and Iraq one enterprise.

Holy ****. Did you actually say that?

OMG You're one of the ones Cheney & Co. are trying to brainwash. I was beginning to doubt the puppet GW's effectivness, as the message was so obviously falling apart, but I now see he is still fooling a few people.

Just to make sure we're on the same page:

Anti-Bush = Anti-American, right?

Iraq had WMD's, they've just hidden them so well they've never been found.

Iraq had Al Qeada connections before 9/11.

The war in Iraq had noting to do with Oil.

Cheney's old company, Haliburton, deserved the billions in contracts issued just days after the fall of Saddam.

God Bless America baby.

[jbg]

The civilized world should consider Afghanistan and Iraq one enterprise.

Holy ****. Did you actually say that?

OMG You're one of the ones Cheney & Co. are trying to brainwash. I was beginning to doubt the puppet GW's effectivness, as the message was so obviously falling apart, but I now see he is still fooling a few people.

Yes, I said it, and the Bush/Cheney message is falling apart only in the mind of MSM. While the Republicans will not do as well as they have in th epast in these elections, the sixth year of a Presidential term is always a bad election year in Congress. I expect the damage will be far lighter than prophesied in the New York Times and Toronto Star.

[ft.niagara]

Yes, I said it, and the Bush/Cheney message is falling apart only in the mind of MSM. While the Republicans will not do as well as they have in th epast in these elections, the sixth year of a Presidential term is always a bad election year in Congress. I expect the damage will be far lighter than prophesied in the New York Times and Toronto Star.

I'm a Yank from the opposite side of NYS. I strongly doubt the Dems will get into power. At most, they'll get the House. They cannot get out of their own way. By the way, I am a Democrat.

jbg, you are a Democrat but you seem to favor Republican policy on engagement. If so, then why are you a Democrat?

In another area about the CBC it indicates you are a Jewish lawyer, near NYC, and that Jewish issues and Israel are of great interest to you. Could it be that you are confusing what is best for Israel with what is best for America? I do not think that America should be Israel's sole guarantee of existance, anymore than it should guarantee Taiwan, or South Korea. I think that Israel's guarantee should come from those nations in Europe which were responsable for any dislocation, not the US.

[jbg]

jbg, you are a Democrat but you seem to favor Republican policy on engagement. If so, they why are you a Democrat?

I'm going to give you a serious answer even though you seem to bear a certain hatred for Jewish people. I'm a Democrat for a few reasons. One is that the Republican Party only nominally exists in my area. Thus, being a Republican would deprive me of the only meaningful "primary" voting there is. Another is that I am quite sharply left-wing on most issues. On "engagement" issues I am grateful that we are fighting the Muslims "over there" and that the only incidence of them fighting "over here" was September 11, the anthrax attacks at the same time, and the recent attempts in Toronto.

In another area about the CBC it indicates you are a Jewish lawyer, near NYC, and that Jewish issues and Israel are of great interest to you. Could it be that you are confusing what is best for Israel with what is best for America?

I think the interests are quite parellel. We're both Western democracies. The Muslim countries are unstable, unreliable dictatorships that do not keep agreements. On a geopolitical basis Israel is a far more valuable ally.

People will say "the Arabs have oil" or "there are more of them, more Arab countries, etc." Given their unreliability and indeed mendacity at the bargaining table, making a deal with Arabs that cannot be easily enforced by arms or otherwise is pointless.

Thus, my interests are pro-West, which means pro-American and pro-Israel. Jews are among America's best and most loyal citizens and I resent your disparagement of the Jewish people. Maybe a quick tour of Auschwitz would lturn you around.

[ft.niagara]

I think the interests are quite parellel. We're both Western democracies. The Muslim countries are unstable, unreliable dictatorships that do not keep agreements. On a geopolitical basis Israel is a far more valuable ally.

I am a professional like you, and I do know many Jewish people. I am not antiJewish, I am proUS. There is quick tendency to confuse the two. You might notice that the Jewish people historically vote Democrat, and most are antiBush (Barbara S). Are THEY both Jewish and antiJewish. I do not agree that Israel/US interest always parallel. I am a Republican, even though I can not vote in the Democratic primary, the dominant party here. I am antiIraq war because I do not see how it benefits the US. To fight the terrorists in Iraq, makes no more sense than fight the communists in Viet Nam. They still have to get in some boats or planes and fly or ride here. The Atlantic Ocean does provide some advantage. All we are giving them is targets, and its their civil war anyway.

I sense your frustration in the 'civilized world' in not supporting the Iraq War, and I do also. I think their lack of support of the Iraq War also parallels exactly their lack of support of Israel. The US is doing all the heavy lifting. It occured to me there is some similarity between New Orleans and Israel. New Orleans is a diked city, and Israel is a diked nation. New Orleans is surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico, and Israel is surrounded by the Moslim world. For the US government to guarantee homeownership below sea level makes no more sense than guaranteeing Israel's safety. It might be an eventual impossibility. The European nations and Canada should be more involved in Israel's safety guarantee, but not much interest exists really.

[jbg]

Thanks for clarifying and no hard feelings.

To fight the terrorists in Iraq, makes no more sense than fight the communists in Viet Nam. They still have to get in some boats or planes and fly or ride here. The Atlantic Ocean does provide some advantage. All we are giving them is targets, and its their civil war anyway.

The trouble is that, with Muslim communities here, in both the US and Canada, the logistics are not daunting. We have had one (or two if you count anthrax) such attacks, and the attempted attacks in Canada and over the Atlantic. Clearly they want us dead. If we fight them over there, the deaths will be largely theres, not ours.

It occured to me there is some similarity between New Orleans and Israel. New Orleans is a diked city, and Israel is a diked nation. New Orleans is surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico, and Israel is surrounded by the Moslim world. For the US government to guarantee homeownership below sea level makes no more sense than guaranteeing Israel's safety. It might be an eventual impossibility. The European nations and Canada should be more involved in Israel's safety guarantee, but not much interest exists really.

That's a terrible analogy. Humans can be made to stop attacking. Lake Ponchartrain (not the Gulf of Mexico, as you say, since NOLA is over 100 Trudeau Units from the Gulf) cannot be ordered to stop. Frankly, there should be more "protected areas" in the Arab heartland where traditional populations of Jews and Christians (Iraq still has one million Christians and Egypt has the Copts) can thrive. Or better yet the Arabs can be induced to welcom people from other religions.

Wouldn't that be a nice event?

[ft.niagara]

That's a terrible analogy. Humans can be made to stop attacking. Lake Ponchartrain (not the Gulf of Mexico, as you say, since NOLA is over 100 Trudeau Units from the Gulf) cannot be ordered to stop. Frankly, there should be more "protected areas" in the Arab heartland where traditional populations of Jews and Christians (Iraq still has one million Christians and Egypt has the Copts) can thrive. Or better yet the Arabs can be induced to welcom people from other religions.

Wouldn't that be a nice event?

I think in the Moslim world, what would be nice, is out of control. Logic is out the window. Arabs are like pigs in that they will not go in a direction they do not want to go.

There is no logic that a muslim fought in Iraq=terrorist fought on the streets in US. Yes there is a sizable population here, but Detroit is not the war zone Iraq is, yet.

If you do not like that analogy, then how about the analogy to Taiwan, and South Korea. Should Americans die for Taiwan or South Korea?

Why is it that the Jewish majority does not support Bush or the Republicans? There seems to be more alignment of interests, IMO. BTW, you should listen to streaming internet talk radio from Israel. It is to the right of Bush. In Israel, some Palestinian woman won a scholarship for a PHD in Israel, but she can not attend because communication has shut down.

[jbg]

There is no logic that a muslim fought in Iraq=terrorist fought on the streets in US. Yes there is a sizable population here, but Detroit is not the war zone Iraq is, yet.

Because immigrants to the US don't get welfare, and have to assimilate. People who work don't have time to riot and fight.

If you do not like that analogy, then how about the analogy to Taiwan, and South Korea. Should Americans die for Taiwan or South Korea?

For South Korea plenty have, as have Canadians. Of course viable (the excludes South Viet Nam) outposts of freedom should be fought for. The surrender of Hong Kong was shameful.

Why is it that the Jewish majority does not support Bush or the Republicans?

I have started threads on that. I wonder why as well.

[America1]

Well then claiming we should be thankful for your defending us is just a load of crap, just as the poster indicated isn't it?

Make up your mind: Either you're defending us despite your best interest so we should thank you or you're simply acting in your own self interest in which case we have nothing to thank you for....unless you figure you owe us thanks for selling you uranium or allowing your airbases here.

.

You should be thankful b/c the job (Canada's protection) is being done, regardless of why.

Face facts, your military is in shambles and the best defense you have against foreign enemies is you are an alley of the US. Sorry if that stings the pride a bit but ,,, oh well, get over it.

[killjoy]

Face facts, your military is in shambles and the best defense you have against foreign enemies is you are an alley of the US. Sorry if that stings the pride a bit but ,,, oh well, get over it.

Doesn't sting in the least. It's true. Well "shambles" isn't the truth but it is too small. t actually runs quite well considering it's size and budget. Besides, there's not an army in the world that can defend North America by man-power. North America is defended by nuclear deterance - nothing more. It doesn't change the fact that if we were invaded and the US came to "help" they'd only do it out of self-interest which means they might very well be willing to make the entire nation a wasteland just to protect themselves. That's not really defending 'us', and that we've benefitted from being next door to you isn't something we need to thank you for; that's simply the luck of geography.

Besides what would've happened if we'd been arming ourselves to the teeth (nuclear - everything) for the past 50 years? You'd get paranoid and consider us a threat. That's the truth, Ruth and you know it. I mean it's hilarious watching some of you Americans try and paint us, even now, as some kind of socialist enemy of the US when it's blatantly self-evident we like you more than anyone else on the planet does.

.

[ft.niagara]

For South Korea plenty have (died), as have Canadians. Of course viable (that excludes South Viet Nam) outposts of freedom should be fought for. The surrender of Hong Kong was shameful.

The question was not have they died, it was SHOULD they die. South Korea is an economic powerhouse, well able to take on North Korea without US support. Taiwan is undefendable from China. Hong Kong was leased land by GB. The US did not surrender it, but it too would have been undefendable.

These lands (SK and Taiwan) can pay for private armies. If they want to lease some of our soldiers, they can pay all expenses for those who want to volunteer (flying tigers), and I mean volunteer. The point is the US should not guarantee everyone else's freedom. It seems to get America no where.

[Topaz]

Well get really, I heard on the news that a Con in the US is going to run for President in'08 and he is VERY PRO- AMERICAN, and is for a fence on both, the north and south borders of the US. Problem is they don't have the money for the fences! BTW, I hope Ford wins Tennessee!

[ft.niagara]

Well get really, I heard on the news that a Con in the US is going to run for President in'08 and he is VERY PRO- AMERICAN, and is for a fence on both, the north and south borders of the US. Problem is they don't have the money for the fences! BTW, I hope Ford wins Tennessee!

Which Con are you talking about, or are you just blowing wind?