Things I'm tired of

CLRV · October 8, 2007

Nonsense...we remember Watergate, Iran/Contra, Clinton's impeachment, and all the rest. It's all good...cause that's how America rolls.....whether it's killing the enemy for Empire and Commonwealth, or more importantly, for economic hegemony. And if anyone believes that Canada hasn't done the same, they are fooling themselves far more than any historian.

Your pose of world-weary, big-picture wisdom is as tiresome as it is strained. It is a cheap suit slapped on nothing more than apathy, amorality and laissez-faire intellectual laziness. But thanks for the reminder about those factors. They are, after all, the final pieces in the puzzle that is Historical Revision -- American Style and I had neglected to mention them. Without a population steeped in these debilitating characteristics, the simple presence of a crooked government, corrupt oligarchy and compliant media isn't enough. People have to be willing pull the wool over their own eyes in order to murder history. Yours is as good a demonstration of that process as any.

When you can show me a time when Canadians funded and armed both sides of a war between two other states, one side openly and the other side by violating our Constitution, lying to Parliament, and funding the process by providing shipping to cocaine cartels, I'll re-examine whether it is, in fact, "all good".

bush_cheney2004 · October 8, 2007

Your pose of world-weary, big-picture wisdom is as tiresome as it is strained. It is a cheap suit slapped on nothing more than apathy, amorality and laissez-faire intellectual laziness. But thanks for the reminder about those factors. They are, after all, the final pieces in the puzzle that is Historical Revision -- American Style and I had neglected to mention them. Without a population steeped in these debilitating characteristics, the simple presence of a crooked government, corrupt oligarchy and compliant media isn't enough. People have to be willing pull the wool over their own eyes in order to murder history. Yours is as good a demonstration of that process as any.

You often neglect to mention such things, as yours is a pollyanna view of reality. The amoral perspective is most alarming to you because it cannot be undermined without tipping to either side. I make no apologies for the circumstances of my nation's experiences, and certainly have little use for wool unless used in a fine suit. Being judged by members of the peanut gallery only establishes the score, even as they scurry to join the millions of other immigrants in a "debilitated" population. Your bile is directed at the great show to the south, because it is far more interesting than your own, but it is still the same kind of show.

Funding for two sides of a "war"? Have you already forgotten the Sponsorship Scandal? History expert indeed!

CLRV · October 8, 2007

I don't know about other Americans, but I was taught in grade school that the chopping down the cherry tree thing was a 'legend'/parable to illustrate Washington's honesty. I'm not sure if it's even still used today, but I knew as a child that it wasn't true. As for how many believe Iraq had WMD-- I think in history, it will go down that he didn't. I think future generations will realize that, if the majority doesn't by now.

Obviously, you are among the minority of Americans who can still think for themselves. I already had devined that.

Whether or not the cherry tree thing is currently believed, the point is it *was* part of "history" for a long time. Moreover, I believe that if someone conducted a poll about it, along the same lines as the ones about finding the WMD's, you might be more surprised than I at the results.

I didn't realize "Americans" did feel that way about WWII,

Well you better look around you, then. If Americans didn't feel that way about WWII, you wouldn't see every anti-US leader worldwide compared to Hitler every time you turn around. You wouldn't see every advocate of peaceful solutions compared to Neville bloody Chamberlain either. How dare the French not rush into Iraq with us, after we *saved their asses in dubyah-dubyah-too*. Can you honestly say these things weren't said and not by a few?

And do you not think there are Canadians who feel the same way about Canada's role in that war?

Actually, I don't think there are many Canadians who go around saying that we saved the world. We fought alongside many other nations against a rising tide of evil. We're proud of that, but we don't think we "won" the war the way Americans think they won the war.

I don't think Americans "accepted unprecedented luxury and overconsumption as just tribute," either.

Well not only as tribute. They also believe God wants them to have it.

I've sure never thought about WWII in regards to my life, and I don't know anyone born after the war who does. Quite frankly, I've just lived my life, thankful for where I was born, but knowing I'd feel that way about any number of countries. I never thought I was due "unprecedented luxuries," and was always thankful for what I've had.

Well you really should reconsider the idea. America wasn't always the superpower it is today. It was once just one of many large powers and not by any means the greatest among them. WWII changed that. Most of the other players on the big RISK board blew their roll in that big war. America sat things out long enough to be still swinging when the dust settled. For that reason alone, Americans can credit their good lives and good fortune.

I don't think getting public support for Iraq means Americans are easily swayed to go to war. I think there was still a lot of shock and saddness over 9-11. That doesn't excuse it, but it doesn't make us easy to support war "on any premise" either.

I wouldn't think it either if it was just the latest Iraq mission I was talking about. But look at the way Americans enjoyed the first Gulf War. Actively ENJOYED it. It topped the TV ratings of the time. Clinton didn't have any trouble convincing the American public that Slobbo was Hitler, either. How easy was it for Bush the Elder to actually portray PANAMA as somehow a threat to the USA, justifying an invasion? Operation Just Cause, indeed. Just cause we want it.

These are patterns, not solitary isolated incidents. Historical patterns. History isn't just what happened to the dead guys. History is all around us.

CLRV · October 8, 2007

Funding for two sides of a "war"? Have you already forgotten the Sponsorship Scandal? History expert indeed!

That's a joke, right? You're not actually calling the separatist squabble in Quebec a "war" on par with the Iran/Iraq conflict?

Are you? :huh:

bush_cheney2004 · October 8, 2007

I wouldn't think it either if it was just the latest Iraq mission I was talking about. But look at the way Americans enjoyed the first Gulf War. Actively ENJOYED it. It topped the TV ratings of the time. Clinton didn't have any trouble convincing the American public that Slobbo was Hitler, either. How easy was it for Bush the Elder to actually portray PANAMA as somehow a threat to the USA, justifying an invasion? Operation Just Cause, indeed. Just cause we want it.
These are patterns, not solitary isolated incidents. Historical patterns. History isn't just what happened to the dead guys. History is all around us.

Krikey! I think he has it by George. (Hee hee...notice no mention of Canada in GW I or Kosovo.)

bush_cheney2004 · October 8, 2007

That's a joke, right? You're not actually calling the separatist squabble in Quebec a "war" on par with the Iran/Iraq conflict?
Are you?

No. I am playing with your squeaky clean historical revisionism when it applies to Canada. Who says it has to be on "par"....corruption and lying come in packages of all sizes.

bush_cheney2004 · October 8, 2007

Well you really should reconsider the idea. America wasn't always the superpower it is today. It was once just one of many large powers and not by any means the greatest among them. WWII changed that. Most of the other players on the big RISK board blew their roll in that big war. America sat things out long enough to be still swinging when the dust settled. For that reason alone, Americans can credit their good lives and good fortune.

But like Canada, the Americans were not attacked early in WW2. Why would Americans run off like Canuck "war mongers" to protect Throne, Empire, and Commonwealth? (Though some did.)

You can't have it both ways, damning the Americans as lucky for not going to war early enough then damning them again for going to war too early and too often.

And just for the record, America did do more than Canada to "win" WW2....because it could. We even cut a goddamn highway through Canada!

Edited October 8, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

margrace · October 8, 2007

Oh yes Bush/cheney we get the eternal message, Canada should get down on its knees and worship and welcome the wonderful neighbours to the south. But you know what that attitude has done. It has made Canadians,who were content to just be us with no bragging, realize what a wonderful country we have.

Thanks to the continual bombasity of some of your rather nasty people we now fly the flag a lot more, we have come to realize what a great nation we are and its about time. Thanks for making us see that.

bush_cheney2004 · October 8, 2007

Thanks to the continual bombasity of some of your rather nasty people we now fly the flag a lot more, we have come to realize what a great nation we are and its about time. Thanks for making us see that.

You're welcome. Glad to be of service.

Edited October 8, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

trex · October 8, 2007

But like Canada, the Americans were not attacked early in WW2. Why would Americans run off like Canuck "war mongers" to protect Throne, Empire, and Commonwealth?

canada has always been a lapdog to the empire, when empire was the british commonwealth before wwII, and america after wwII. hence the reason to rush to afghanistan after 9/11, in which also we were not attacked.

we are an ass-kissing plutarchy that wants to cosy up to wherever the big money is. we have no problem hammering down the poor in thrid world countries where that gives us an economic advantage. as a wealthy nation, we have no problem ignoring our own poor to. something that im tired of

October 8, 2007

That's a joke, right? You're not actually calling the separatist squabble in Quebec a "war" on par with the Iran/Iraq conflict?
Are you?

He thinks a blow job with a consenting adult is on par with the Iran/Iraq conflict. <_<

Edited October 8, 2007 by American Woman

jazzer · October 8, 2007

And just for the record, America did do more than Canada to "win" WW2....because it could. We even cut a goddamn highway through Canada!

How far back do you wanna go? Remember who burnt down the White House?

October 8, 2007

And just for the record, America did do more than Canada to "win" WW2....because it could. We even cut a goddamn highway through Canada!

Wow. We built a highway! And of course we were the only country to do that. No other country built a highway.

October 8, 2007

...look at the way Americans enjoyed the first Gulf War. Actively ENJOYED it. It topped the TV ratings of the time.

So news of the war topped the TV ratings at the time-- And that's your proof that Americans enjoyed the war? What if some silly sit com had had higher ratings at the time? I'm guessing that would be proof that we didn't give a damn about what happened over there.

I remember watching news of the war-- so I'd know what was happening. And believe me, I in no way enjoyed the war.

Edited October 8, 2007 by American Woman

bush_cheney2004 · October 9, 2007

Wow. We built a highway! And of course we were the only country to do that. No other country built a highway.

Nope...not the way and speed in which we built that highway.

CLRV · October 9, 2007

He thinks a blow job with a consenting adult is on par with the Iran/Iraq conflict.

I guess I'll keep things in that perspective, then. Thanks.

Remember when moral relativism was a sin only the anti-war left committed?

bush_cheney2004 · October 9, 2007

I remember watching news of the war-- so I'd know what was happening. And believe me, I in no way enjoyed the war.

It was splendid.....I was on management strike duty at a defense plant and we didn't have a cable TV link, but I brought a portable shortwave for my desk. Listened intently to the BBC reports of air sorties and strike missions. Later, we watched / heard Bernard Shaw's most excellent adventure by sat-phone from his hotel in Baghdad.

The strike didn't last long because the union scum knew we were at war, and would need plenty of 120mm tank rounds and GAU-8 ammo!

Edited October 9, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · October 9, 2007

How far back do you wanna go? Remember who burnt down the White House?

Yes...your masters...Great Britain. God save the Queen.

CLRV · October 9, 2007

So news of the war topped the TV ratings at the time-- And that's your proof that Americans enjoyed the war? What if some silly sit com had had higher ratings at the time? I'm guessing that would be proof that we didn't give a damn about what happened over there.

Well, it's not very often the news tops the ratings. But there were plenty of other indications that America found Desert Storm an entertaining and enjoyable experience. Remember the trading cards? The video game? The other video games? The Hollywood Desert Storm Victory Parade with Bob Eubanks? Hulk Hogan vs. Sgt. Slaughter in a Desert Storm Match for the title? Speaking of stupid sitcoms, remember Wings and the sassy female chopper pilot from Desert Storm? The footage of the laser-guided bombs hitting with surgical precision, even though Gen. McPeak admitted that such bombs represented only 8.8 percent of the ordnance dropped? But it was a really cool shot, wasn't it? That's entertainment.

Bush the Elder's approval rating went to 91% from that war, the highest for any president in decades before or since. That's more than enough proof right there how Americans loved that war. It was well observed and documented, I'm afraid. The Vietnam Syndrome had been beaten forever.

For me, the best summary was Roger Waters' "The Bravery of Being Out of Range". It was directed to Bush the Elder but could just as easily be directed at Bush the Lesser (and his toadying sychophants). Read the lyrics or

to hear it as it was meant to be heard.

I remember watching news of the war-- so I'd know what was happening. And believe me, I in no way enjoyed the war.

I believe you. However I also believe you might be a member of a rapidly shrinking minority; the Thinking American.

bush_cheney2004 · October 9, 2007

For me, the best summary was Roger Waters' "The Bravery of Being Out of Range". It was directed to Bush the Elder but could just as easily be directed at Bush the Lesser (and his toadying sychophants).

Roger Waters couldn't carry Bush the Elder's jockstrap....he was not "out of range" during WW2.

margrace · October 9, 2007

Nope...not the way and speed in which we built that highway.

Oh come on, you didn't build that highway for Canada, you needed a speedy way to protect your property, remember where Alaska is? You did nothing for us that wasn't in your own interest.

bush_cheney2004 · October 9, 2007

Oh come on, you didn't build that highway for Canada, you needed a speedy way to protect your property, remember where Alaska is? You did nothing for us that wasn't in your own interest.

Whoever said the Americans built the AlCan highway for you?

October 9, 2007

(American Woman @ Oct 8 2007, 03:10 PM) Wow. We built a highway! ohmy.gif And of course we were the only country to do that. No other country built a highway.

Nope...not the way and speed in which we built that highway.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps no other country did build a highway in the way we built that highway, which was to ignore 1/3 of those who participated in the project because of their color.

"There was much praise for soldiers who pushed it through in just eight months and twelve days. However, Black battalions were seldom mentioned in publicity releases, despite the fact that they numbered 3,695 in troop strength of 10,670."

Link