Pre-Emptive Striking

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Aug 20 2004, 07:59 PM
"Its clear you hate Americans" No , no wrong, quote any of my statments that show my hatred for american citizens? Americans gov't, GW Bush, american foriegn policy yes I do hate those, I am not petty like you, and I WILL NOT right of the lives of Americans beacsue of the actions of their leaders. And Dicplaced, some new for ya, the anti-american sennitment hasnt risen beacuse its "cool" I know americans like to tell themselves that, but its sadly not true. We, on mass, are showing dislike towards your nation beacuse their forign policy has no respect for the rights and oppinions of non americans. This senntiment is fueled by the American dominence that is flaunted around the world.

" the anti-american sennitment hasnt risen beacuse its "cool" I know americans like to tell themselves that, but its sadly not true. We, on mass, are showing dislike towards your nation beacuse their forign policy has no respect for the rights and oppinions of non americans."

I'm Canadian thick and through, but I believe this quote is a fabrication of non-American frustration of which I refuse to support. I study political science in a Canadian university where ALOT of voices are spoken over the subject of American foreign policy, and let me tell you, many naive people out there are siding against our American allies because they don't want to be branded a 'war-mongerer', or a 'right-wing crusader.' Coming from a province where half (if not more) of our business is conducted with the US, I can tell you that it may seem hard for you to look beyond my alignment with American ideology. However, for those to simply say they don't agree with the US because they don't agree with their foreign policy is utterly naive and cowardice of looking at the larger picture. We Canadians can feel plump because of countless consumer goods and product imported from the States; we Canadians can feel rich because of countless American-based employment opportunities within our borders; and we Canadians can feel safe with American defense of our sovereign nation. These are just a few. So for people to say they hate (or more moderately, disagree) with the US is expressing an opinion based on three years of anti-American bombardment by non-US media outlets and totally disregarding a whole life's worth of American support in all aspects of society - economically, politically, and militarily. For any Canadian, Brit, Franco, German, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, Japanese or any other person of any country that exists today because of American pro-creation to say they are anti-American is like turning their back on that uncle that gave them both years of monetary and emotional support to get through the hard times. Would that be 'cool?' Well, some people are certainly being lead in that unfortunate direction. I for one find it un-cool to be anti-American for simply having said uncle spank a child for being bad. Does that make him abusive? Does that make him war-mongering? Would you judge this uncle for the rest of his (and your) life for spanking a child? Pretty naive to me. You're not going to hate him for the rest of your life, are you? I'm sure there are some redeeming qualities about our dear uncle, and most of the anti-American sympathsizers are maliciously ignoring him without looking at what he's done for you.

I'm sorry, but after reading this entire thread and trying to understand the opinions, beliefs and values of people from all walks of life, it is clear to me that those that disagree with US foreign policy are walking down an arrogant path of superiority blaming the US for global woes. Rash, very rash indeed.

Fire away.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Ozymandias@Aug 23 2004, 05:10 AM
" the anti-american sennitment hasnt risen beacuse its "cool" I know americans like to tell themselves that, but its sadly not true. We, on mass, are showing dislike towards your nation beacuse their forign policy has no respect for the rights and oppinions of non americans."

I'm Canadian thick and through, but I believe this quote is a fabrication of non-American frustration of which I refuse to support. I study political science in a Canadian university where ALOT of voices are spoken over the subject of American foreign policy, and let me tell you, many naive people out there are siding against our American allies because they don't want to be branded a 'war-mongerer', or a 'right-wing crusader.' Coming from a province where half (if not more) of our business is conducted with the US, I can tell you that it may seem hard for you to look beyond my alignment with American ideology. However, for those to simply say they don't agree with the US because they don't agree with their foreign policy is utterly naive and cowardice of looking at the larger picture. We Canadians can feel plump because of countless consumer goods and product imported from the States; we Canadians can feel rich because of countless American-based employment opportunities within our borders; and we Canadians can feel safe with American defense of our sovereign nation. These are just a few. So for people to say they hate (or more moderately, disagree) with the US is expressing an opinion based on three years of anti-American bombardment by non-US media outlets and totally disregarding a whole life's worth of American support in all aspects of society - economically, politically, and militarily. For any Canadian, Brit, Franco, German, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, Japanese or any other person of any country that exists today because of American pro-creation to say they are anti-American is like turning their back on that uncle that gave them both years of monetary and emotional support to get through the hard times. Would that be 'cool?' Well, some people are certainly being lead in that unfortunate direction. I for one find it un-cool to be anti-American for simply having said uncle spank a child for being bad. Does that make him abusive? Does that make him war-mongering? Would you judge this uncle for the rest of his (and your) life for spanking a child? Pretty naive to me. You're not going to hate him for the rest of your life, are you? I'm sure there are some redeeming qualities about our dear uncle, and most of the anti-American sympathsizers are maliciously ignoring him without looking at what he's done for you.

I'm sorry, but after reading this entire thread and trying to understand the opinions, beliefs and values of people from all walks of life, it is clear to me that those that disagree with US foreign policy are walking down an arrogant path of superiority blaming the US for global woes. Rash, very rash indeed.

Fire away.

Wow, you're studying political science at a Canadian university. Good for you. I'm glad we finally have the definitive voice on the topic chime in. Hey, when you finally drag your ass into a history class feel free to come on back and fill us in on what has happened over the past 100 years that blows your post out of the water, from the Canadian perspective as well as the American perspective. Maybe you can explain the creation of NORAD and NATO and how those bodies affected the decisions of other governments (this is right up your alley since it was a political decision). Maybe you can explain how American isolationism turned into imperialism with the creation of the OSS and later the CIA. Maybe you can explain how and why the strong Canadian economy (and buck) took the tumble it did. Maybe you can also explain the American stance in the middle east and strange relationship between America, Isreal and the creation of Isreal itself. It seems that we're all (you can include many Americans) pretty naive in regards to American foreign policy, but it seems that you may be a little naive when it comes to understanding how the Americans, and their allies, got to where they are today. Maybe you can give us a lesson in history since you just schooled us on politics?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 23 2004, 12:40 PM
Wow, you're studying political science at a Canadian university. Good for you. I'm glad we finally have the definitive voice on the topic chime in. Hey, when you finally drag your ass into a history class feel free to come on back and fill us in on what has happened over the past 100 years that blows your post out of the water, from the Canadian perspective as well as the American perspective. Maybe you can explain the creation of NORAD and NATO and how those bodies affected the decisions of other governments (this is right up your alley since it was a political decision). Maybe you can explain how American isolationism turned into imperialism with the creation of the OSS and later the CIA. Maybe you can explain how and why the strong Canadian economy (and buck) took the tumble it did. Maybe you can also explain the American stance in the middle east and strange relationship between America, Isreal and the creation of Isreal itself. It seems that we're all (you can include many Americans) pretty naive in regards to American foreign policy, but it seems that you may be a little naive when it comes to understanding how the Americans, and their allies, got to where they are today. Maybe you can give us a lesson in history since you just schooled us on politics?

Sorry Lanny, I'm not arguing any historical reference - I have better things to do with my time than dig up facts all day for a message board arguement. I merely expressed my opinions from first-hand experience in (mostly) generation-X debate, something you couldn't relate to. I am not arguing against the current internaitonal perspective on US policy - on the contrary, I'm coming to fully understand it and make my own judgements on the topic - something people are forced to do in times like these. The position I'm arguing, if you had bothered to read my post, is that most people who live in the "Western" world should look at the larger picture and understand why they live the life they do today. I am not disregarding any historical facts in this sense - I am fully aware that it is organizations such as NORAD and NATO that have kept us from being blown into oblivion; I am fully aware of the ties the US and Israel have and how it has given the US a foothold in the Middle East - no where am I disregarding these facts. However, I am simply pointing out the fact that those unhappy with the US should not assume current American foreign policy equals an American standard of diplomacy. That is a dangerous path to take.

I can see your arguement regarding the Muslim world, in which to be rational people we must put on the shoes of those people living in the Middle East, but my arguement is directed to Westerners, not the native Arabs who are going through some very tough times. In this sense, I fully support trying to understand their position, as religion and community take on a whole new meaning for their culture. It's just unfortunate that some have to pass quick judgement on Golaiath as the bully because he's bigger than David (I know it's a terrible religious analogy, but you get my point).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Ozy_Flame@Aug 23 2004, 04:09 PM

Sorry Lanny, I'm not arguing any historical reference - I have better things to do with my time than dig up facts all day for a message board arguement. I merely expressed my opinions from first-hand experience in (mostly) generation-X debate, something you couldn't relate to. I am not arguing against the current internaitonal perspective on US policy - on the contrary, I'm coming to fully understand it and make my own judgements on the topic - something people are forced to do in times like these. The position I'm arguing, if you had bothered to read my post, is that most people who live in the "Western" world should look at the larger picture and understand why they live the life they do today. I am not disregarding any historical facts in this sense - I am fully aware that it is organizations such as NORAD and NATO that have kept us from being blown into oblivion; I am fully aware of the ties the US and Israel have and how it has given the US a foothold in the Middle East - no where am I disregarding these facts. However, I am simply pointing out the fact that those unhappy with the US should not assume current American foreign policy equals an American standard of diplomacy. That is a dangerous path to take.

I can see your arguement regarding the Muslim world, in which to be rational people we must put on the shoes of those people living in the Middle East, but my arguement is directed to Westerners, not the native Arabs who are going through some very tough times. In this sense, I fully support trying to understand their position, as religion and community take on a whole new meaning for their culture. It's just unfortunate that some have to pass quick judgement on Golaiath as the bully because he's bigger than David (I know it's a terrible religious analogy, but you get my point).

I hope you didn't feel like I was jumping on you Ozy. I respect your points. What I was trying to drive home is that your understanding of what caused the United States to take the very active role that they do is largely their own doing. What I really wanted to know was if you were aware of the historical situations that caused what you percieve as the international community allowing the US to do all the dirty work while sitting back and enjoying the security they provide by being the 1000 pound gorrilla. Are you aware of...

* The US had a very isolationist policy prior to WWII. They were late comers to each of the first world wars and liked it that way. They cared more about what was going on their own backyard than what was going on elsewhere. This was when America was great because they focused on building a nation, being inventive and developing new technologies. They had so much to do to support their developing nation that the didn't have time to p*ss around in other affairs. That all changed with the attack by the Japanese and the development of the OSS, which later (basically) became the CIA. At this time they decided to take a more active role in watching their back and not leaving themselves open to an attack. It also gae them a capacity to do something they had not done prior to that, and that was have a significant impact in events in other countries using covert operations. These events are what really changed US foreign policy IMO.

* Canada and the US formed NORAD for multiple reasons, many of which hurt Canada in a long run. Canada was sold on the concept of missle defense and the belief that troops and weapons would become obsolete. They shelved several programs that would have had the nation at forefront of weapons technology in favour of falling under the umbrella of the missle defense umbrella. Canada was given a senior command position, and still has it to this day, for giving up these development programs and assisting in the implementation of the DEW system. Canada is still very active in this regard and does their fair share in this regard. Unfortunately it killed Canadian industries, like aerospace that was a head of the US industry in many ways as well as development of other weapons platforms, and hurt the nation in the long term.

* NATO was formed out of what was viewed as a necessity to counter the Iron Curtain military buildup and their nuclear weapon programs. Considering the technology and financial outlay it would have taken all nations to develop their own nuclear weapon programs, and the danger to the world itself, it was actually a very good move to form this alliance where the US was the one to provide all of the hardware and technology. It should also be noted that there are countries that are NATO members that have their own military and have excellent defense systems. The US and Britian are the two bodies in NATO that have a serious offensive capability. This was by design and a smart move by the countries in question. The belief was, who is going to want to kick your teeth down your throat if you don't do anything to p*ss anyone off? It also aligned with the foreign policy in place with many of these nations in the first place. The United States development of a huge military hardly had much of an impact on the formation of these counties policies historically.

* The US had very little to do with the formation of Isreal. It was actually the Soviet Union/Russia that championed the whole concept of Isreal. The United States (IIRC) didn't even vote on the proposition with the League of Nations/United Nations. The US only took a more active role with Isreal in the 60's. I'm still a little unclear as to why they developed the relationship they did at the time, but before this the US was no more than standoffish or even oblivious to the challenges Isreal was facing.

I agree with you that current events are likely not aligned with historical foreign policy. I think they have taken a dangerous step in the wrong direction. If they would take a more isolationist approach to foreign policy, essentially ask before intervening, I think they would get a lot more respect. But what they are doing now appears to be nothing more than an exportation of their foreign policy wrapped up in their form of democracy.

I don't mind your David versus Goliath analogy. I only wonder who is David and who is Goliath. If the US does the wrong things they could find themselves fighting an ever ending battle where the guerilla war is fought on their own streets. As I said earlier, its boiling down to a war of ideology. Can you win a war of ideology using planes, tanks and ships? I don't think so. The only effective weapon the US has in this war is likely their achillies heel, and that's their foreign policy.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 23 2004, 06:24 PM
I agree with you that current events are likely not aligned with historical foreign policy. I think they have taken a dangerous step in the wrong direction. If they would take a more isolationist approach to foreign policy, essentially ask before intervening, I think they would get a lot more respect. But what they are doing now appears to be nothing more than an exportation of their foreign policy wrapped up in their form of democracy.

I whole-heartedly agree that isolationism is an idea that should be reviewed by the US government, but I believe that is a larger undertaking than we might come to suspect. I have always thought that John Kerry would have a tougher task as the President than Dubya on a second term, simply because he would be slapped the title of pacifier and be expected to balance both Iraqi sovereignty and American pride - not exactly an easy task. Isolationism is a long-term, strategic plan that could only be carried out once places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea are dealt with accordingly, and no one knows exactly how long each of these precarious situations will last.

I for one would love to see American efforts diverted to Homeland and North American security instead of spreading themselves thin across the globe. However, such a process is lengthy a best, and a pipe-dream at worst.