It was an extreme example to try and get people to consider the plight of others. When is the line drawn and when do you finally say that what is happening is wrong? Does something have to happen in your own backyard before you pull your head out of the sand and speak out against it? Would a move against Canada be the only way for people to consider the United States wrong? Maybe a better, and more kind example, would be if the US slapped a 500% tarrif on soft wood, wheat and beef imports to try and get a sweetheart of a deal on Canadian fossil fuel reserves. Would that get the cockles up a bit and seem a little oppressive?
You have officially lost your mind.
If you are suggesting that Iraq was a target of Bush for the oil, and as such, that Canada could be next, I have one question.
Why didn't Bush just head to Fort MacMurray from the get go?
Certainly would of been cheaper, would of been easier as they could stage troops just 400 miles from the target instead of going across the continent to do so, and what resistance would of they faced? Never mind they could of skirted the whole oil for food program like Russia and France did, and just BOUGHT it a whole lot cheaper than the current cost of the military action.
If the US wants to slap tarrifs to force unfair trade balances, they have that right. It would kill them in the end economically by losing their biggest trade partner, but what that has to do with my ALLEGED statements that ....
"the US decides to bend Canada over for the Alberta tar sands , through either economic pressure, political or military intervention, the tune will change quickly"
is so completely beyond me i have no idea what to retort.
I congratulate you though Lanny, you have convincingly become a full-fledged fear monger (which is your right in this apparently imperialistic government controlled society) that you accuse the "neo-con Bush supporters" of. Well done.
Fortunatley, I have an entire base of experience in my life that i won't fall for it.
|