The American Millennium

[CLRV]

Yes. Fear and disinformation. By defintion NOT critically and independantly.

Hence my spit-take when I saw it used below.

[bush_cheney2004]

As for the opinion polls, many Americans' thinking was colored by fear-- and Bush et al played on that fear. Had it not been for 9-11, of course things would have been different in Americans' eyes. Of course there would have been those who supported Bush/war no matter what, but the fear following 9-11 definitely was a factor. It's scary to wake up and find your country under attack.

What was the "fear" in 1991 (Gulf War I), or 1999 (Kosovo). Were Americans also not thinking critically, (but Canadians were?)

Why is "fear" > attack Afghanistan OK, but not "fear" > attack Iraq?

[August1991]

We in Canada made our own reality, thank you very much. Perhaps you want to discount our efforts and leave it all to your heroes to the south, but I know better.

Yes, we did make our own reality. And by that admission, you kind of undermine your whole America Dicatatorial Empire argument. Would an Evil Empire let its immediate neighbour choose to make its own reality?

Amazing. Public education: it's bad when Canada does it, but great when the US does it.

I never said that public education in Canada is necessarily bad. Fortunately in Canada, education is a provincial responsibility which means that we have already diversified decisions. In some provinces however, education decisions are too centralized in the provincial bureaucracies and in centralized teachers unions.

The US more often wisely decentralizes most of these decisions to local school boards. I think that's a more viable system in the long run.

I must point out that letting local government run schools means kids in rich areas get good schools and kids in poor areas get zilch.

Given the many different parents that a child could have, I think the Americans do a fairly good job of making the differences at birth less dramatic while at the same time not sacrificing too much the potential of any child.

Save the best joke for last, I always say. Critically and independantly? North Americans have no such skills. Most people pay to know what they really think. They read the op-eds and they parrot talking points. The Iraq war never would have happened if the American public was thinking critically and independantly at the time.

As a product of an education system similar to the US system, it is ironic that you make these remarks.

You seem to have somehow developed your own thoughts on many subjects and you seem critical of US and Canadian government policies. You certainly seem informed about the issues. If you parrot any talking points, they seem to remind me of some of my high school teachers.

[Guest American Woman]

What was the "fear" in 1991 (Gulf War I), or 1999 (Kosovo). Were Americans also not thinking critically, (but Canadians were?)

Why is "fear" > attack Afghanistan OK, but not "fear" > attack Iraq?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The fear Americans were feeling, the fear of another attack, was taken advantage of; Bush et al played on that fear and convinced too many Americans that Iraq was involved. As it turns out, Afghanistan wasn't involved either, so in retrospect that too was wrong-- though I admit I supported it at the time. In fact, I hoped Bush wouldn't be afraid to attack. That was a reaction to my fear, even though deep down I knew it was wrong. But I was afraid, and my fear won out. I admit that.

Yes. Fear and disinformation. By defintion NOT critically and independantly.

Hence my spit-take when I saw it used below.

Even people who engage in critical and independent thought the majority of the time sometimes react to fear. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of critical and independent thought, or that they don't engage in it.

[CLRV]

Would an Evil Empire let its immediate neighbour choose to make its own reality?

I never said it was an Evil Empire. Just an empire, one that let a golden opportunity to spend the Peace Dividend slip through its fingers. That's all my original post said.

[August1991]

I never said it was an Evil Empire. Just an empire, one that let a golden opportunity to spend the Peace Dividend slip through its fingers. That's all my original post said.

Empire or Evil Empire, the US is neither.

As to the peace dividend, let's step back a second. In 1990, Saddam Hussein made Kuwait a 16th Iraqi province. (That's what I would call true empire building.) The US put together a coalition and kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. The presence of American soldiers in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Cities enraged some Saudi funadmentalists and al-Qaeda was born. In 2001, al Qaeda flew planes into big buildings in the US, dramatically changing the skyline of New York City.

The US wanted to use the peace dividend otherwise but it was drawn into a war not of its choosing.

If Place Ville Marie were removed from Montreal or the CN Tower from Toronto, I sense that Canadians might have a different perspective on US military actions abroad.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The fear Americans were feeling, the fear of another attack, was taken advantage of; Bush et al played on that fear and convinced too many Americans that Iraq was involved. As it turns out, Afghanistan wasn't involved either, so in retrospect that too was wrong-- though I admit I supported it at the time.

The Taliban regime of Afghanistan was most certainly involved. It provided a place for Al-Qaeda to organize and launch its various attacks against US interests.

A direct connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda has never been found but there is an indirect connection. For myself, I simply find it hard to believe that Osama bin Laden operated without any contact whatsoever with Syria's Assad or Iraq's Saddam.

In any case, I was against the US coalition invasion of Iraq but I can certainly undetrstand why Bush, Blair and Howard decided to do it.

Edited August 25, 2007 by August1991

[CLRV]

Empire or Evil Empire, the US is neither.

Would the term "hegemony" be more politically correct for you?

The US wanted to use the peace dividend otherwise but it was drawn into a war not of its choosing.

As I said, the Gulf War had been won. The message was "What We Say Goes". What did America say when it had the chance? Nothing much. It idled away the decade mostly in self-indulgence. Think Bill Clinton playing the sax. Thus an opportunity was lost, I say irretrievably. You are more optimistic. Good luck with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never said it was an Evil Empire. Just an empire, one that let a golden opportunity to spend the Peace Dividend slip through its fingers. That's all my original post said.

This is rich...Canada spent its "peace dividend" before the "peace" even existed.

[bush_cheney2004]

As I said, the Gulf War had been won. The message was "What We Say Goes". What did America say when it had the chance? Nothing much. It idled away the decade mostly in self-indulgence. Think Bill Clinton playing the sax. Thus an opportunity was lost, I say irretrievably. You are more optimistic. Good luck with that.

Wrong...think UN sanctions, no-fly zones, Desert Fox, cruise missile attacks, and Kosovo. Think Rwanda as the opportunity lost.

What did Canada do?

[bush_cheney2004]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The fear Americans were feeling, the fear of another attack, was taken advantage of; Bush et al played on that fear and convinced too many Americans that Iraq was involved.

Iraq was already destined for "regime change" long before Bush Jr. or 9/11. America was already engaged, and had been since 1991. Tell me about the "fear" for ethnic Albanians being more principled than the "fear" for Iraqis.

[August1991]

Would the term "hegemony" be more politically correct for you?

By using these various terms (empire, hegemony), you are falling into the trap of the modern North American Left which tends to see everything in terms of dominant and victim. (In this, the Left has made into an ideology the defence of anyone it perceives as being an underdog or a victim.)

For the US to be dominant, or an Empire or a hegemony, there would have to be in effect a cartel of some sort. The US is founded on the principles of diffusing power. An American cartel is simply untenable. For starters, who would control or police such a cartel? The US federal government? That's laughable.

One can criticize the US federal government (and the US military) for many faults, absurdities and some atrocious behaviour. But they don't constitute an Empire, a Hegemony or even a Dominant force in the world. There are simply too many checks and balances in the American system. In simple terms, the White House is no Politburo.

It would do a world of good when the Left gets off this jag of defending victims and starts to think critically about what government is and what it can do to promote good. For example, the Left's latest shift to so-called progressive values in defending an individual's freedom to choose in sexual matters is a welcome change.

Edited August 25, 2007 by August1991

[Posit]

Certainly you must have been asleep all these years?

The Haliburton Cartel. They have carte blanche in the administration.

[bush_cheney2004]

Certainly you must have been asleep all these years?

The Haliburton Cartel. They have carte blanche in the administration.

What is the "Haliburton Cartel"? Don't worry, Canada's oil services companies also got a bite out of Iraq's carcass.

[AngusThermopyle]

"I understand much better why people from all of the world love to go to America. It's a very well organized country with diversity of cultures and real democracy and freedom. It may take few years for new immigrants to get used to the American life, once you know the rules and custorms ,working hard, good brains and ideas, you may reach success. What your country has ,the most important value that others may not have, is the equalty of opportunities. I wish China can catch up with it in the near future, i hope i live long to see the day. America is very advanced. I suppose China needs at least 50 --100 years to catch up with it."

I don't dispute what you are saying AW, in large part it speaks eloquently and honestly.

I must also add that I'm filled with admiration for your astonishing ability to recall passing conversation word for word at least 6 to 8 moths after the alleged conversation took place.

Bravo to you!

[Guest American Woman]

I don't dispute what you are saying AW, in large part it speaks eloquently and honestly.

I must also add that I'm filled with admiration for your astonishing ability to recall passing conversation word for word at least 6 to 8 moths after the alleged conversation took place.

Bravo to you!

Thanks, and hold on to that admiration, but I actually c&p'd it from an email.

[margrace]

What is the "Haliburton Cartel"? Don't worry, Canada's oil services companies also got a bite out of Iraq's carcass.

Who said it didn't and what has this to do with the subject at hand?

[bush_cheney2004]

Who said it didn't and what has this to do with the subject at hand?

See definition of "Cartel". (Canada was not excluded from post war contract bids despite.)

The topic is "The American Millenium" (sic). That includes a broad range of related subjects.

PS: What does giving free health care and housing to "old people" have to do with good government? See how that works....backatcha.

[August1991]

Certainly you must have been asleep all these years?

The Haliburton Cartel. They have carte blanche in the administration.

I was thinking of a cartel more in the sense of NATO: A group of military powers working together for their own advantage and whose membership is policed by some enforcement mechanism. I think that you'll agree that NATO doesn't fit that description (although the Warsaw Pact possibly did).

As to Halliburton, I don't think staking a company's future profits on the outcome of an election is a wise business strategy in the long run. In any case, if Cheney et al wanted to funnel boatloads of cash to Halliburton, they didn't need a war to make it possible. In fact, a war is a costly way of paying off friends - assuming that was the purpose of the exercise.

[The Left should stop barking up these empty trees: "It's the crude, dude" or "It's a Halliburton payoff".]

The topic is "The American Millenium" (sic).

Oops. Just saw that. Edited August 26, 2007 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

I was thinking of a cartel more in the sense of NATO: A group of military powers working together for their own advantage and whose membership is policed by some enforcement mechanism. I think that you'll agree that NATO doesn't fit that description (although the Warsaw Pact possibly did).

Since NATO was formed to counter the Soviet Union / Warsaw Pact, it went wanting for a mission and purpose when those enemies fell away. First we had the "membership" drive in Eastern Europe, then a practical application in Kosovo to test the waters of unbounded power. The legacy partnership with the UN Charter was certainly dashed to pieces by Allied Force, but some healing took place with sanctioned operations in Afghanistan, as if following the rules needed to be demonstrated on some international level again (i.e. "a legal war").

The real power of any cartel resides in economics...the military power is just an attribute of this entity. By this measure, the American Millennium may be at risk for Americans, but not the uniform application of American inspired policies in world markets and economies.

[CLRV]

By using these various terms (empire, hegemony), you are falling into the trap of the modern North American Left which tends to see everything in terms of dominant and victim.

By slapping the "Left" label on me, you're falling into the trap of the modern North American, which demands every issue coming down the pike must be broken into a clearly defined Left Side and Right Side, resulting in endless kneejerk argument without any hope of thoughtful consideration.

One can criticize the US federal government (and the US military) for many faults, absurdities and some atrocious behaviour. But they don't constitute an Empire, a Hegemony or even a Dominant force in the world.

Certainly you say that whenever anyone points out a negative effect. It's only when you look at something good that you insist, like Babylon 5 itself, America is "the last best hope of Man on Earth" which has "made the world at large a better place to live". All the good things in the world originated in the USA, but all the bad things have nothing to do with the last remaining superpower. That's nothing but blinkered hero-worship. To say a superpower is somehow not a dominant force in the world is just denial.

I was thinking of a cartel more in the sense of NATO: A group of military powers working together for their own advantage and whose membership is policed by some enforcement mechanism. I think that you'll agree that NATO doesn't fit that description

I've tried several times to say already that economics, not militarism, is the core of contemporary imperialism. You insist on thinking in Cold War terms.

In any case, if Cheney et al wanted to funnel boatloads of cash to Halliburton, they didn't need a war to make it possible. In fact, a war is a costly way of paying off friends - assuming that was the purpose of the exercise.

[The Left should stop barking up these empty trees: "It's the crude, dude" or "It's a Halliburton payoff".]

The "Left" says these things because they are demonstrably true and are happening right in front of our eyes. War is always good for business. That is a truism. Funnelling cash into corporate coffers is the only thing the current US administration has done successfully in Iraq. Millions and millions of dollars have disappeared into an unexplained black hole over there. How dare you accuse other people of barking up trees when you look at that and simply blink?

[Bonam]

I can think of a lot worse things that could happen to the world than it being united in American-run hegemony.

[August1991]

The real power of any cartel resides in economics...the military power is just an attribute of this entity. By this measure, the American Millennium may be at risk for Americans, but not the uniform application of American inspired policies in world markets and economies.

On the contrary, the American Millenium - with luck - will be based on an individual's freedom to choose.

Mark Steyn, I suspect, would argue otherwise. He seems to seek the social conservative vote; people who want to say that the Western World is on the road to perdition because it is in debt, sleeps around and doesn't go to Church.

IMV, if we are to defeat this Islamic threat, we'll do it by sheer numbers, and the attraction of freedom. History is on our side.

With luck, the next 1000 years will be America's.

[August1991]

For the past few days, I have been driving through the likes of Fayetteville, SC and Brunswick, Georgia.

America is a wonderful country, and I pray that America will become the world writ large in the year 3000. Huh? America is not a country at all - it is the result of individuals freely choosing what they want to do.

[With that said, let me state that there are other ways to achieve this American goal.]

PS. I saw no John Edwards bumper stickers.