Maple Leaf Patches/Pins

[TheLastCanadian]

They did...the UK/USA kept the screws to Saddam for twelve years after the Gulf War, with many military attacks, no-fly zones, sanctions, and funding for Kurdish rebellion.

Then why didn't Canada do it sooner (from logic above)?

Because, we're not obligated to follow the US. I don't control my nation's policy, that's the parliamentarians.

Notice how I had doubts about it when it started, I, as with many others, saw it as a US war which was their mess to fix. I still think they ultimately caused it, but I'm past that. I've thought a lot about that war and come to the conclusion that, US or not, it is necessary to liberate these people not out of any shallow self-interest, but as a moral duty of the free world.

And no, Cheney, they did not tell the world why they attacked Iraq without provocation in 2001. They came up with bs about needing to spread democracy, and that he was somehow a threat based on WMD's that did not exist.

The fact is that they went in because Saddam had become a liability. He was beginning to be seen as a US puppet, or at the very least somebody with his hands tied by the evil American infidel. But the US knew they couldn't just ask nicely for him to step down. The WMD's have long been proved to have been total propaganda.

The US lied to make their invasion seem like it was done for the right reasons, not the petty self-interest that motivated it.

They don't want to take flak for their real reasons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because, we're not obligated to follow the US. I don't control my nation's policy, that's the parliamentarians.

Neither do individual Americans. If "human rights" and "Responsibility to Protect" be all the rage and at the core of Canadian values, then why is Canada not leading the charge around the world? I'm just arguing against your similar logic for Americans slaying tyrants around the world with equal aplomb.

Notice how I had doubts about it when it started, I, as with many others, saw it as a US war which was their mess to fix. I still think they ultimately caused it, but I'm past that. I've thought a lot about that war and come to the conclusion that, US or not, it is necessary to liberate these people not out of any shallow self-interest, but as a moral duty of the free world.

No, it's more straightforward than that. Not only did Chretien welcome the Afghan conflict as a ready made excuse to avoid Iraq (because Canada really had nothing to offer of military significance to Iraq on top of A-stan), but much vaunted NATO and UN obligations mandated it because a member nation was attacked. Afghanistan was championed as the most righteous of causes compared to Bush/Blair's "war of aggression".

And no, Cheney, they did not tell the world why they attacked Iraq without provocation in 2001. They came up with bs about needing to spread democracy, and that he was somehow a threat based on WMD's that did not exist.

Iraq was not invaded in 2001...that was March 2003. But it was attacked many times since 1991 to enforce surrender instruments from the Gulf War. In fact, it was a matter of public law in the United States to overthow Saddam's regime as of 1998 (H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). George Bush was not inaugurated until January 2001.

The fact is that they went in because Saddam had become a liability. He was beginning to be seen as a US puppet, or at the very least somebody with his hands tied by the evil American infidel. But the US knew they couldn't just ask nicely for him to step down. The WMD's have long been proved to have been total propaganda.

The Saudis and USA did "ask nicely"...Saddam refused.

The US lied to make their invasion seem like it was done for the right reasons, not the petty self-interest that motivated it.

They don't want to take flak for their real reasons.

The hell they don't....Iraq was invaded for specific geopolitical reasons, not the bullshit about human rights that get Canadians thirsty for blood in far away places. Two other PMs (Blair and Howard) concurred.

Edited July 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[TheLastCanadian]

Neither do individual Americans. If "human rights" and "Responsibility to Protect" be all the rage and at the core of Canadian values, then why is Canada not leading the charge around the world? I'm just arguing against your similar logic for Americans slaying tyrants around the world with equal aplomb.

No, it's more straightforward than that. Not only did Chretien welcome the Afghan conflict as a ready made excuse to avoid Iraq (because Canada really had nothing to offer of military significance to Iraq on top of A-stan), but much vaunted NATO and UN obligations mandated it because a member nation was attacked. Afghanistan was championed as the most righteous of causes compared to Bush/Blair's "war of aggression".

Iraq was not invaded in 2001...that was March 2003. But it was attacked many times since 1991 to enforce surrender instruments from the Gulf War. In fact, it was a matter of public law in the United States to overthow Saddam's regime as of 1998 (H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). George Bush was not inaugurated until January 2001.

The Saudis and USA did "ask nicely"...Saddam refused.

The hell they don't....Iraq was invaded for specific geopolitical reasons, not the bullshit about human rights that get Canadians thirsty for blood in far away places. Two other PMs (Blair and Howard) concurred.

Alright, sorry about the date. 2001 didn't seem right.

We have done many things to help. Afghanistan is an American mess, as are Iran and Iraq. I would support any measure of war against the two former nations. As for dictatorship, well, while it is terrible, I hardly think that it is practical to start a crusade against it, especially when the US is so keen to prop it up to preserve their own interests. There are only three theocratic states (maybe not Afghanistan, but that's only if we win). It's something we can destroy before it comes to full flower and spreads its evil among all peoples of the Earth. Communism has lost its expansionist attitude. Theocrats have not.

It's a threat to all peoples of the world, and simply too oppressive to allow anyone to live under. I don't preach. I intend to join the Forces and hopefully get my opportunity to combat this scourge.

You know we don't have an army for that kind of undertaking, Cheney. We would lead the charge if we could.

But as it stands, there are two major things in the way: Our army is intended to do peacekeeping, and there are too many countries who are eager to undermine that work by propping up dictatorships to aid their own interests..... not to name names.

And US law? Where does law give the US any right to attack a nation without provocation, especially someone they propped up in the first place? You can't properly justify such a destructive war using that logic. By extension, if Canada screwed up the US epically by pushing Bush ahead in the polls, we would have every right to attack you to rectify the shortcoming (THEORETICAL, I don't actually mean we could). All we have to do is get the Governor General's signature on it, and then it's all OK? We can do whatever we like?

Yes, maybe it's public law to overthrow Saddam. But the question to be asked is why?

What justification did they have, and if this cause was so just, why did they market it as "Democracy" and "WMD's"? Saddam was in no hurry to attack the Americans.

There is simply no reasonable justification for Iraq except petty self interest.

This speaks of a just war, I'm certain:

^^^Oh, and you can save yourself some time if you decide to actually watch that clip, after he mentions racism the first time, he just kind of focuses it on that. It's what he says at the start I'm concerned with.

As for your Afghanistan comment.... seriously?

Chretien welcomed that conflict, despite the fact it was as good as a death blow to his government? You don't understand Canadian politicians then. They're in it for power, the people be damned. If it would cost them power, they wouldn't do anything for us.

There was no reason or obligation to go to Iraq on Canada's part. The US was not attacked.

You think we were baying for blood, praying we would get dragged into this conflict?

You've got another thing coming if you honestly believe that. We didn't start that war. We didn't create the government that started it. We are fighting for the people. The US is too, but they're also concerned with vengeance. That war meets all criteria of just war theory. Iraq is sorely lacking. A war for the people of a nation is always worth more than one for selfish geopolitical reasons. Don't kid yourself. Geo-political is just a useless buzzword for self interest.

A war fought to preserve the rights of people is much more just than the idiotic geopolitical wars you speak of.

It's wonderful Britain and Australia were stupid enough to follow you into that cesspit, but the rest of the security council, and the countries it represents condemned the war. I'd say good old democracy wins out there. 2 for - 3 against, not to mention a majority of the countries without a permanent seat.

Also.... you clearly misunderstood my statement about "asking Saddam nicely". That was meant in the sense of "Even if they had asked, we both know Saddam wouldn't have said yes".

You have my agreement that Afghanistan had to be fought. Yes, our government was dragged into it for the wrong reasons, but ultimately to do the right things. To be dragged is much worse than to step forward, and it is lamentable that our government did not step forward.

Iraq is a moral travesty. It is the selfish, conniving attitude of a nation, so dedicated to getting its way that it will crush not only a leader, a country, but its people as well. Oh well, I guess I can rest assured, should my misgivings be wrong, no harm. If the US is truly right to be in Iraq, things will turn out OK. Otherwise, it will reap its just desserts.

If it should be the latter, I only hope it is visited upon those responsible, and not by association. It is one thing that a leader should be hanged. It is another that civilians should perish in the ruins of a jet.

The lie of God makes a poor judge, as does his book. Fortunately, there are those that ensure justice is done.

____________________________________________________

Oh, and as this will inevitably come up: I am anti-american. Not in the sense of any misgivings against the people, but I stridently oppose its government. I cannot accept that I would hate by virtue of a people, but I am quite content with my disdain for the US policymakers.

My opinions on the matter will change when the US changes its tune.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a threat to all peoples of the world, and simply too oppressive to allow anyone to live under.

You know we don't have an army for that kind of undertaking, Cheney. We would lead the charge if we could.

Agreed...so don't write checks you can't cash. General Dallaire found this out the hard way in Rwanda.

But as it stands, there are two major things in the way: Our army is intended to do peacekeeping, and there are too many countries who are eager to undermine that work by propping up dictatorships to aid their own interests..... not to name names.

Peacekeeping is a collective Canadian myth exploded by General Hillier. I prefer to call it "Peacekilling". Iraq, Balkans, Haiti, and Afghanistan were not peacekeeping.

And US law? Where does law give the US any right to attack a nation without provocation, especially someone they propped up in the first place? You can't properly justify such a destructive war using that logic. By extension, if Canada screwed up the US epically by pushing Bush ahead in the polls, we would have every right to attack you to rectify the shortcoming (THEORETICAL, I don't actually mean we could)

The USA is a constitutional republic....it can attack other sovereigns once all the paperwork is signed off in Congress. Oh, and as you indicated above, it also has the means to do so.

Yes, maybe it's public law to overthrow Saddam. But the question to be asked is why?

Read the resolution. Blair and Clinton promptly bombed Saddam in December 1998 (Operation Desert Fox).

What justification did they have, and if this cause was so just, why did they market it as "Democracy" and "WMD's"?

There is simply no reasonable justification for Iraq except petty self interest.

All wars are predicated on self interest...even Canada's.

As for your Afghanistan comment.... seriously?

You think we were baying for blood, praying we would get dragged into this conflict?

You've got another thing coming if you honestly believe that.

Yes....Canada was one of the first to enter the fray post 9/11 with JTF2 assets and a firm commitment to US actions (e.g. Operation Apollo). To this day, and despite waning public support, Canadian Forces are still ardent supporters of the mission through 2011.

A war fought to preserve the rights of people is much more just than the idiotic geopolitical wars you speak of.

It's wonderful Britain and Australia were stupid enough to follow you into that cesspit, but the rest of the security council, and the countries it represents condemned the war. I'd say good old democracy wins out there. 2 for - 3 against, not to mention a majority of the countries without a permanent seat.

Yet they did not vote to condemn the war or demand an immediate ceasefire. In fact, the UNSC has supported all post invasion plans for the formation of a new Iraqi government. PM Martin begged Bush for and received a piece of the action for post invasion services contracts.

Also.... you clearly misunderstood my statement about "asking Saddam nicely". That was meant in the sense of "Even if they had asked, we both know Saddam wouldn't have said yes".

Again, the point is that much could have been avoided with Saddam's capitulation. Remember, UN inspections did not resume until after the US/UK went camping in Kuwait with over 200,000 troops.

But since when can you just ask a head of state to resign?

Canada did it for Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti (2004)....he refused so he was forcibly removed, despite being democratically elected.

[TheLastCanadian]

I don't find your reasoning in any way convincing on Iraq.

Perhaps peacekeeping is not the most fit term to describe it. A euphemism, in all likelihood. But what we've done in the vast majority of these missions is not an all out war. The US has started these wars on a regular basis.

As for nations attacking one another, there is the reality that it will happen. What I don't like about Iraq is the simple fact that it is not a just conflict. The US was wronged in no major way by Saddam after things settled down, and even if they had been, you play with fire, you get burned, and you have nobody but yourself to blame. A war does not become just because it is signed into law. Hitler's word was German law. He went to war, and declared the people should do the same.

Does this mean that WW2 was justified? The same point stands with the US army. The German Army was big enough to complete Hitler's mission of destruction (at the onset), does this make it right that it did so?

Dallaire was deserted by the UN as a whole. He was not called to lead by the Canadian Army, he was called for it by the UN. He could not guarantee CF support. The mainstay of the mission, the Belgians, deserted him.

As for Martin, it's clear that Afghanistan was going ahead anyway, why not make some more money to fluff his own pockets. He had fun doing that with sponsorship too.

Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not self interest. As a country bound by such treaties, we have neither the influence nor the military might to shirk them. It was not our option or in our interests (the Canadian national interest, at any rate.) to enter Afghanistan, but we did. That the soldiers support it is to be expected. Their friends have fought and died in that war, and they know first hand what evils the Taliban has committed. The Canadian public has been kept largely ignorant of it.

For Jean-Bertrand Aristide.... I see. Care to tell me who did the forcing out?

You can ask. Doesn't mean you can enforce it justly. Look at Musharraf.

Or what of Arbenz? His successor? The thousands who died in the civil war created by the power vacuum the US made?

Also, the council may have not voted on a ceasefire, but do you think the US would have listened? They already went to fight a war unsanctioned by the UN. Don't kid yourself, the US carries itself like it can do whatever it wants, and sadly, that's the truth of the matter.

UN and NATO are nothing but ineffectual bodies that Canadian tax dollars are used by, simply because the Canadians are too damn scared to be shunned for doing the right thing and telling the UN to ... you know.

As for Nato, sadly, in our position, it's necessary, but by no means should our politicians be so hunky-dory to deal with it in the manner they have. We've taken the constant abuse of our military allies in Afghanistan, followed their retarded war plans, and all because it would look bad if Canada had the sense to speak up and say that the way this war is being conducted, we're just going to put off losing.

Look, while I won't be convinced Iraq is just, at least consider that now it has started, I want the US there to make sure it succeeds.

Otherwise, it fails on one more aspect of just war theory, and probably the most important one of all. That..... and we'll just be there again in another ten years, our parliamentarians will have the same debate, and we'll just have this whole wonderful debate again

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't find your reasoning in any way convincing on Iraq.

It is not meant to convince anyone...it is just a statement of fact for the continuum started in 1991. Canada helped to strangle Iraq right along with the rest of us.

Perhaps peacekeeping is not the most fit term to describe it. A euphemism, in all likelihood. But what we've done in the vast majority of these missions is not an all out war. The US has started these wars on a regular basis.

Ah...the famous Canadian "Devil Made Us Do It" defense, even while claiming to be an independent sovereign that declined an invitation to invade Iraq. In short, your Canada wants it both ways....superhero for human rights but never a "bully". LOL!

As for nations attacking one another, there is the reality that it will happen. What I don't like about Iraq is the simple fact that it is not a just conflict. The US was wronged in no major way by Saddam after things settled down, and even if they had been, you play with fire, you get burned, and you have nobody but yourself to blame. A war does not become just because it is signed into law. Hitler's word was German law. He went to war, and declared the people should do the same.

Godwin's Law applies....no matter....it wasn't just the Americans...it was the UK, AUS, POL and many others. Canada sat on the fence, never taking a stance of true opposition like France, Germany, or Russia. Canada wanted its cake and eat it too.

Does this mean that WW2 was justified? The same point stands with the US army. The German Army was big enough to complete Hitler's mission of destruction (at the onset), does this make it right that it did so?

Irrelevant...military capability was still a tool and means to an end decided by civilain leadership.

Dallaire was deserted by the UN as a whole. He was not called to lead by the Canadian Army, he was called for it by the UN. He could not guarantee CF support. The mainstay of the mission, the Belgians, deserted him.

True, but Chretien and Canada could not even scrounge up 50 measely APCs or transport to get them to Rwanda. Pathetic:

First, Dallaire has said frequently that he thinks that a few thousand well-trained peacemakers could have prevented the massacre in Rwanda.

The new Chretien government in office in 1993 clearly failed Rwandans

, UNAMIR and Dallaire by not sending a decent contingent of Canadian soldiers with him. As Dallaire notes in the book, it is expected that the home government of every UN mission commander will send a respectable number to demonstrate that it is pulling its weight. How else can other governments be persuaded to send necessary numbers as well?

As for Martin, it's clear that Afghanistan was going ahead anyway, why not make some more money to fluff his own pockets. He had fun doing that with sponsorship too.

If you say so...all I know is that a very "principled" Canada sure as hell lined up for a share of someone's else's kill in Iraq.

Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not self interest. As a country bound by such treaties, we have neither the influence nor the military might to shirk them. It was not our option or in our interests (the Canadian national interest, at any rate.) to enter Afghanistan, but we did. That the soldiers support it is to be expected. Their friends have fought and died in that war, and they know first hand what evils the Taliban has committed. The Canadian public has been kept largely ignorant of it.

False...the very nature of collective security id directly related to UN/NATO membership and obligations. Canadian public support was very high in the beginning particularly when contrasted with the subsequent war in Iraq.

For Jean-Bertrand Aristide.... I see. Care to tell me who did the forcing out?

You can ask. Doesn't mean you can enforce it justly. Look at Musharraf.

The Haitian plot was hatched with full complicity and execution by Canada with France and the United States.

Also, the council may have not voted on a ceasefire, but do you think the US would have listened? They already went to fight a war unsanctioned by the UN. Don't kid yourself, the US carries itself like it can do whatever it wants, and sadly, that's the truth of the matter.

No big deal....Kosovo (1999) was also not UN "sanctioned".

UN and NATO are nothing but ineffectual bodies that Canadian tax dollars are used by, simply because the Canadians are too damn scared to be shunned for doing the right thing and telling the UN to ... you know.

No...I don't know. If Canada wants to be player on the world stage, then ante up.

As for Nato, sadly, in our position, it's necessary, but by no means should our politicians be so hunky-dory to deal with it in the manner they have. We've taken the constant abuse of our military allies in Afghanistan, followed their retarded war plans, and all because it would look bad if Canada had the sense to speak up and say that it was stupid in the first place.

More excuses....always with the excuses. Its always somebody else's policy faults that gets poor little Canada into such messes, right? What was King George VI thinking when he got the Commonwealth involved in yet another world war?

[bush_cheney2004]

____________________________________________________

Oh, and as this will inevitably come up: I am anti-american. Not in the sense of any misgivings against the people, but I stridently oppose its government. I cannot accept that I would hate by virtue of a people, but I am quite content with my disdain for the US policymakers.

Join the club....and get in line with the millions of other principled America haters who also want their economic relationship with the evil hegemon to continue. You see sir, we know what you are...all that remains to be negotiated is the price.

My opinions on the matter will change when the US changes its tune.

The US will not change its tune....'cause then it wouldn't be America anymore. Your opinion (and mine) is of little consequence beyond forum chum.

Edited July 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[TheLastCanadian]

That "you know" wasn't nearly as deep as you must think it was supposed to have been.

Canada should tell the UN to fuck off.

If you look at it, the UN is totally flawed as both an organization and an idea.

Nations will not agree with one another, and all it is doing is leeching off of everybody. If something were truly so important as to require an international body, the players would find ways of working it out amongst themselves.

Their economy is not what kills the Iraqi children, subjugates peoples or leaves houses burning, Cheney. I do not take issue with that aspect of America. What I take issue with is the wars it fights and the destruction it has caused, along with its arrogance in world affairs. Power should be used properly and responsibly. Neither has been done in the US.

The US helps enrich the world through its economic innovation, and while my country is more dependent on that than I would like, I shun nothing that helps others. It's when it comes to the first things I mentioned that I take moral issue. For that aspect of my philosophy, I give you a quote from Gandhi:

"A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble."

Good day.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[bush_cheney2004]

"A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble."

If this be your mission, better to work on Ottawa first...and stop worrying about what happens in Washington. America owns its actions.....and so does Canada, whether it wants to or not.

[TheLastCanadian]

If this be your mission, better to work on Ottawa first...and stop worrying about what happens in Washington. America owns its actions.....and so does Canada, whether it wants to or not.

If only our politicians saw it that way. Can I have a rant?

[rant]

The Canadian politicians, regardless of party all value one thing over the proper governance of their people, power. They will gang up on one another to get it, fight to win it, promise whatever they need.

They will do the same to gain it from outside sources, and they all need to get a spine. They were elected to represent us, not their pocketbooks and power hunger. [/rant]

Needless to say, that's where I intend to go. Ottawa.

You know the reality. To worry about Canada, one needs to worry about Washington.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[bush_cheney2004]

If only our politicians saw it that way. Can I have a rant?

Your rant is easily drowned out by the bitching when gasoline prices exceed 90 cents per liter.

[rant]

The Canadian politicians..... [/rant]

..are Canadian. Not American....

Needless to say, that's where I intend to go. Ottawa.

You know the reality. To worry about Canada, one needs to worry about Washington.

...a pity, as I do not have opposite concern. Please send more uranium....you will be paid handsomely.

[Remiel]

Afghanistan is a necessary war. Not because the US was attacked. Not because terrorism is dangerous, but simply because of the inordinate evil religious government presents. Nothing on this Earth is more dangerous than theocracy, the medieval fusion of religious fascism and dictatorship. It liberates humans from any compassion for their fellow man, as those in power are solely accountable to a higher power, most of which are indifferent to our suffering, so long as their will is done.

I would be careful about throwing around the idea that theocracies are all evils that need to be destroyed. I have read quite a few people, most of them Israeli Jews, who describe Israel as being rather theocratic, despite also having democratic underpinnings.

Also, I think you are underestimating how terrible war can be. Theocrats are bad enough, but through war they are placed back in the " state of nature " , which can be much worse. Thomas Hobbes, who lived during a time of civil war in Britain, believed it to be an evil so great that pretty much any authority would be preferable to it. Wiping out theocracies with war may produce non-theocracies (and that is debateable), but it can very much be trying to cleanse evil with greater evil.

At the end of the day, maybe trying to remove the Taliban was the right decision, but whether it was so should not be judged merely by how self-righteous their religious authorities make us feel.

It is not some crusade. Afghanistan is as necessary as the destruction of Nazism was.

Not even close.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

No, what I am saying is that it is fine to be patriotic, regardless of your national origin. The problem is that there is often a double standard applied: when a Canadian wears a maple leaf, it is seen as a matter of national pride but when an American wears a baseball hat or Yankees tee shirt while in Europe he is seen as an Ugly American and something a lot of people (including some in this forum) would roll their eyes at. (Personally, when I see a British tourist wearing a Man. Utd. jersey, I think it is kind of cool and don't consider it provincial of him or as Ugly British.)

I generally wear some Saskatchewan Roughrider clothing while travelling. We (Rider fans)are always on the lookout for each other. Last summer in Barcellona I met a guy wearing a Rider tee shirt who turned out to be from Australia. His daughter goes to the U of Saskatchewan.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs

[Topaz]

I'm sure wearing a US pin or Canadaian pin could get you killed in certain countries, maybe try wearing pins from all the countries and really confuse people! HA!

[PIK]

When I travel , I wear something with the maple leaf ,why because there is nothing on this planet that makes me more prouder then the maple leaf.

[P. McGee]

I'm not so sure I like the idea of advertising my status as a tourist somewhere, but it seems that those who wear Canadian symbols may have an incentive to behave courteously so that goodwill towards Canadians continues. The notion that certain Americans wear Canadian flags to take advantage of this fact seems to be widely repeated, but there has been little evidence given here to support it, even anecdotally.

Americans are not alone in being stereotyped for brash and ignorant behaviour as tourists. The stereotypes of rude American, German or Australian tourists, to give some examples I have seen repeated, seem to have more to do with obnoxious behaviour than they do with foreign policy. Get drunk and make an ass of yourself in a foreign land and some people will associate that behaviour with your country of origin. If you are friendly and considerate, most people will be able to see that the stereotype doesn't apply.

To wade into the WWII debate from a few pages back, I think there may be a perception that Canada's participation was motivated more by goodwill than self-interest. There is no question that the US and American companies profited immensely both before and after involvement in the war. From the Bretton Woods arrangement follows the USD's continued status as an international reserve currency, which today enables the country to function as a net importer of almost everything but weapons. To go back to obnoxious tourists, the attitude of "you people should be grateful, we saved all your asses in WWII" is a sure way to make yourself unpopular in Europe, whether you're Canadian or American. Everyone knows it was the Russians who did that. (kidding)

[bush_cheney2004]

....From the Bretton Woods arrangement follows the USD's continued status as an international reserve currency, which today enables the country to function as a net importer of almost everything but weapons....

"Almost everything" would exclude these non-"weapons":

Semiconductors ... US$50.2 billion (4.3% of US total Exports)

Complete civilian aircraft ... $48.8 billion (4.2%)

Automotive parts and accessories ... $44.2 billion (3.8%)

New and used passenger cars ... $43.7 billion (3.8%)

Other industrial machines ... $38.3 billion (3.3%)

Pharmaceutical preparations ... $35 billion (3%)

Telecommunications equipment ... $31.4 billion (2.7%)

Organic chemicals ... $31.4 billion (2.7%)

Electric apparatus ... $31.1 billion (2.7%)

Computer accessories ... $29.4 billion (2.5%)

Plastic materials ... $29.1 billion (2.5%)

Medicinal equipment ... $23.8 billion (2.1%)

Business machines excluding computers ... US$5.4 billion

Wheat ... $8.5 billion

Sorghum, barley and oats ... $1.2 billion

Dairy products and eggs ... 2.5 billion

Oilseeds and food oils ... $2 billion

Nonmonetary gold ... $13.3 billion

Steelmaking materials ... $9.9 billion

Soybeans ... $10.5 billion

DVDs, tapes and disks ... $4.9 billion

Musical instruments ... $2.1 billion

Natural gas ... $3.1 billion

Corn ... $11.2 billion

[P. McGee]

"Almost everything" would exclude these non-"weapons":

...

An exaggeration I'll admit, but overall there is still a trade deficit, no? Goods coming in, paper going out. Do you disagree that WWII and Bretton Woods put the US in a very favourable position?

[bush_cheney2004]

An exaggeration I'll admit, but overall there is still a trade deficit, no? Goods coming in, paper going out. Do you disagree that WWII and Bretton Woods put the US in a very favourable position?

..or a bit of "hyperbole"? The US emerged as the dominant power post WW2 for several reasons, not the least of which was being in a position to do so. The USA did not start WW2...but it did help a teenie weenie bit to finish it. LOL!

To the victor goes the spoils.

[P. McGee]

..or a bit of "hyperbole"? The US emerged as the dominant power post WW2 for several reasons, not the least of which was being in a position to do so. The USA did not start WW2...but it did help a teenie weenie bit to finish it. LOL!

To the victor goes the spoils.

But not the "goodwill" of the Europeans apparently. Such is life.

[bush_cheney2004]

But not the "goodwill" of the Europeans apparently. Such is life.

The "Europeans" have only themselves to blame. Don't make the Americans come over there....twice.

[P. McGee]

The "Europeans" have only themselves to blame. Don't make the Americans come over there....twice.

Luckily for us all that's not too likely, but do you seriously think it would go well for the US?

[bush_cheney2004]

Luckily for us all that's not too likely, but do you seriously think it would go well for the US?

It went well enough for the US....Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc are gone. Blue jeans and iPhones are very popular! They can even sing a few words of the theme for Gilligan's Island, just like Canadians.

Edited August 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[P. McGee]

It went well enough for the US....Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc are gone. Blue jeans and iPhones are very popular! They can even sing a few words of the theme for Gilligan's Island, just like Canadians.

I must have missed the part where America "came over there" and forced the Russians to abandon Communism. Are you certain they didn't just come to the decision themselves? Either way, a military invasion of Russia then or now would be a very stupid move, even for the country with the most expensive military in the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

I must have missed the part where America "came over there" and forced the Russians to abandon Communism. Are you certain they didn't just come to the decision themselves? Either way, a military invasion of Russia then or now would be a very stupid move, even for the country with the most expensive military in the world.

An invasion wasn't necessary....the Soviet Union imploded for a lot of reasons. The US and allies were just there to push them over the edge with "freedom", military spending, and economic hijinx. This was after the Americans sent them the war materials to win WW2 all by themselves. LOL!