"Anti-US"

[White Doors]

Fair enough, but the debate is whether or not they entered the war to help these people, or to protect their own geo-political position. I happen to think that motives count, not just actions. I believe its a mistake to think that the US was a shining white knight, looking for the downtrodden to crusade in their favour.

What country HASN'T entered a war that was to protect their 'geo-political' position? Name ONE.

Thank you.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Based on my 5 years studying political science and history (what you might call 'mindreading'), yes, the US entered the War for reasons other than alleviating human suffering and supporting global goodness, but rather for reasons and purposes that suited the US economically and politically.

Again, name me ONE country that hasn't.

[RedMan12]

America ##### yeah!

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

America ##### yeah!

Oh, well thanks for the insight?

[Uncarved]

"but there is no Oil in New Orleans." (Redman12)

Can you please explain to me why i am currently sitting on a Oil Rig barge that is only a 30 min boat ride to New Orleans?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Uncarved

"but there is no Oil in New Orleans." (Redman12)

Can you please explain to me why i am currently sitting on a Oil Rig barge that is only a 30 min boat ride to New Orleans?

Now that my friend is awesome

[Azure]

No, you're taking what I'm saying and trying to fit it into your self-imposed black or white choices. Just because I don't believe the US attacked Germany to alleviate the suffering of others doesn't mean I think it was wrong to attack Germany.

You sure don't paint it as a 'right' picture either. American may have been moving on their own motives, just like 'every' other country in the world does/has. I really can't see your problem with that.

Did Canada join WW2 to ease the suffering of others?

As I've said numerous times (and typical of you to ignore it) it is the motives I'm inquiring about, not the consequences. You seem to be missing the point; I'm not declaring that Germany should not have been attacked. I'm questioning some people's beliefs that the US was a supreme force for good and justice like some sort of Superman, and attacked Germany in a pure good vs. evil sense. I think that ignores 'realism'.

Where did anyone declare the US 'is' a supreme force for good? Whatever their motives were, is irelevent, as I'm pretty sure Canada, and many of the other allied nations did not join WW2 as a pure good vs. evil sense. What is important, and should be, is the outcome.

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by Uncarved

"but there is no Oil in New Orleans." (Redman12)

Can you please explain to me why i am currently sitting on a Oil Rig barge that is only a 30 min boat ride to New Orleans?

Can you explain to me why America is not helping it's own people and off looting in Iraq?

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I have a problem with the actual title of this thread.

This is exactly what the Bush administration does; clamis that if anyone speaks out against US policies, they automatically are against the US and therefor are terrorists. A lot of Americans have what you call, "anti-US" sentiments when all they are doing is pointing out the injustices of their own government. Why would anyone want to promote apathy, especially in regards to politics? When citizens are not critical of policies and do not question government, that's when it becomes dangerous.

The fact is, people need to be critical of their governments and although some of us aren't American civilians, the US does have an enormous amount of influence on Canadian policies. I believe it is our responsibility to bring attention to all the poor decisions and policies that are out there and make vocal our discontent with them so our own government does not make the same decisions.

In a way, saying that people who oppose US decisions are anti-US is just negating their arguments. Often when I point to indecencies in the US administration, my point gets disregaurded as "anti-US", which is ludacris.

Exactly. That is what America is supposed to be about. If you don't like how your country is being run you are supposed to be able to change it.

It seems to me like America is slowly becoming Fascist. If you speak out against America or don't like how the President is running the country people will peg you Anti-American when really what you are doing is all American.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

Can you explain to me why America is not helping it's own people and off looting in Iraq?

I thought you said it was because there is no Oil in New Orleans?

Oh right...

Anyways, I do believe the US government has given aid to help the people of New Orleans, after the ridiculous way everyone responded to the Hurricane threat, but weren't there reports of people buying 'goodies' with their aid money, instead of 'needs.'

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Which goes back to my point, that America could have been content to sit out of the war and supply weapons and not lose a good chunk of thier younger generation.

We can't really argue this much fruther

England was taxing them and taking the profits and not giving them representation in the government. It foster in the growth of a country.

That's my point American colonies went to war to have more money.

The stopping of the advance of slavery and the loss of control of the government were the primary reasons for the civil war. The actual fighting started due to the confederate states seizing federal territory which is the same as an armed attack.

Cotton was the primary reason for war. America didn't want to lose it's indusrty. The Civil war started in 1861, I believe the emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863. 2 years after the war started they said they are freeing the slaves. Free slaves meant the south could not produce as much cotton. Thus crippling the Southern economy.

don't take this to a personal level, that certainly not what I called it, but thats how the American's perceived entrance into the European conflict before thier entrance. There were inklings but no indications that the slaughter of the jews was happening. The war didn't threaten the continental U.S. until the Japanese stupidly decided that attack the U.S. and removing its pacific fleet as a threat was a smart move.

How can you call it stupidly? Lets say you live in the middle of nowhere and I am you main source of food. You do something I do not approve of. So I cut of your source of food. What are you gonna do? Sit back and die?

Remember that the Japanese bought the trade boycott upon themselves by invading thier neighbours, and they were prewarned by the American's that there would be consequences to that action. The American's did not want to go to war with anyone at the time, so why would they attack, but cutting off trade and freezing assets was deemed as a proper warning shot to cut off Japanese aggression.

This is exactly the American attitude I do not approve of. Since when is America the world police? Since when is it their right to say what country is allowed to do what. America did not have permission to go into Iraq by the UN but they did it anyway. Maybe other countries should cut off trade with them. The American government is one the biggest hypocrites.

Of course its not better for innocent victims to die, something that the Japanese were far better at creating by slaughtering thier enemy civilians in wholesale numbers.

DO 2 wrongs make a right? Was it American civilians they were slaughtering? Japan and the rest of Asia have a thousand years of war history with eachother.

Unfortunately WWII was a terrible war, the Japanese did it, the Germans did it, The American's did it and the Germans did it. The Atomic bombs were deemed neccessary back then to prevent the further loss of life on a far greater scale, and to hold off Stalin's plans to advance and seize as much of the Japanese territories as they could.

Oh how suprising the real motive rears it head. It was never about saving lives. It was about scaring the crap out of Japan and the rest of the world. America had the real power made sure everyone knew it.

At the time of the cold war, the Russians influenced and held much of Europe in terror, how communism looks now is irrelevant as we've now had 20 years of armchair quarterbacking to fall back on. But at the height of the cold war the Soviet Union was a terrify spectre of military power, that seemed to get involved where ever they could since one of the big mantras of communism was global socialism in our time no matter what the means.

The exact same thing can be said about America. America had nukes pointed a countries during the cold war. America is hardly the good guy. Both sides were the bad guy.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Anyways, I do believe the US government has given aid to help the people of New Orleans,

Sure, if you call doling out a bunch of money to corporate interests with no inclination in rebuilding New Orleans with cooperation of the locals. The people themselves have been give jack.

after the ridiculous way everyone responded to the Hurricane threat,

I hope you're refering to the Bush amdninistration's ridiulous response and not the average Joe. How exactly does the average Joe respond when they have no money, no where to go, and no transportation?

but weren't there reports of people buying 'goodies' with their aid money, instead of 'needs.'

Yeah, I don't know why they wouldn't go and put that $2,500 gift card to good use like buying a house to replace the one that was destroyed in the flooding. We got a lot of refugees from New Orleans and that $2,500 went no where for them. Imagine having to travel away from New Orleans, replace everything you own, and find a new place to live, on $2,500 bones. Think you could do that AND find a job in short order?

Oh, and btw, ever get really blasted when you just lost your job and knew you couldn't afford a good bender? Probably not, you're a little young to go through something that traumatic.

[Uncarved]

New Orleans has been taken over by the drug dealers and theives. That is why they had to bring in the national gaurd for the second time. As to the US goven't giving them enough help, i don't think they have if any. Heck even the insurence agencys aren't paying out anything for alot of these houses. As to the oil companys and why the US is in iraq, whether it is true or not but i feel like they are looking after the intrests of the corpirations and the stock holders and not the people that need it most in their own country.

[Calgary Flames]

Originally Posted by Uncarved

New Orleans has been taken over by the drug dealers and theives. That is why they had to bring in the national gaurd for the second time. As to the US goven't giving them enough help, i don't think they have if any. Heck even the insurence agencys aren't paying out anything for alot of these houses. As to the oil companys and why the US is in iraq, whether it is true or not but i feel like they are looking after the intrests of the corpirations and the stock holders and not the people that need it most in their own country.

Which isn't far off from what it was before the Hurricane. Is it not the murder capital of the world? Correct me if i'm wrong.

[drp_69]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Sure, if you call doling out a bunch of money to corporate interests with no inclination in rebuilding New Orleans with cooperation of the locals.

Yeah, I don't know why they wouldn't go and put that $2,500 gift card to good use like buying a house to replace the one that was destroyed in the flooding. We got a lot of refugees from New Orleans and that $2,500 went no where for them. Imagine having to travel away from New Orleans, replace everything you own, and find a new place to live, on $2,500 bones.

Oh Lanny............such a cynic! Its always about corporate greed and money, NEVER anything else. Maybe the Bush administration actually whipped up Katrina with their ultra-secretive massive weather machine, just to create havoc and destruction from which they all somehow profited?

Ooops perhaps this should be in the 'conspiracy theory' thread?

[Calgaryborn]

If the US didn't act like the world police who do you think would replace them? How far would the USSR have gone if America didn't show a will to stop them? Do you think Canada would be able to protect our borders if the world knew that the US wouldn't get involved? How many of our dollars would we have to take away from our social programs in order to reasonably protect ourselves and our stuff?

Canada's number one expenditure is health care. I believe that America's is military. That would change dramatically if America ceased being the worlds policeman.

Here's a thought: I think a federal Government shouldn't be involved in social issues. I think they should provide a military defense and just law. Beyond that perhaps a representation internationally. The provincial government should look after the provincial highways and the resource management. The regional and city governments should manage local infrastructure such as water and land use. Beyond that we should all take home our tax dollars. We then as individuals could provide for the needy among us through personal intervention and charities of our choosing.

Someone said that: "The measure of great society is in how they care for their poor". I would agree with that but, the responsibility should rest with us as individuals. How we treat those in need around us says a lot about our character.

[drp_69]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If the US didn't act like the world police who do you think would replace them? How far would the USSR have gone if America didn't show a will to stop them? Do you think Canada would be able to protect our borders if the world knew that the US wouldn't get involved? How many of our dollars would we have to take away from our social programs in order to reasonably protect ourselves and our stuff?

Canada's number one expenditure is health care. I believe that America's is military. That would change dramatically if America ceased being the worlds policeman.

Here's a thought: I think a federal Government shouldn't be involved in social issues. I think they should provide a military defense and just law. Beyond that perhaps a representation internationally. The provincial government should look after the provincial highways and the resource management. The regional and city governments should manage local infrastructure such as water and land use. Beyond that we should all take home our tax dollars. We then as individuals could provide for the needy among us through personal intervention and charities of our choosing.

Someone said that: "The measure of great society is in how they care for their poor". I would agree with that but, the responsibility should rest with us as individuals. How we treat those in need around us says a lot about our character.

I like this. I also think that (wait for it) that Canada has consistently under-spent on defense with the previous, many liberal govts; indirectly relying on the USA military might (read coporate/Bush/crony greed, if you are so inclined) to defend us or help us out if it ever came to the 'push'.
Thats the irony of the situation in Canada. Its so cool and "Canadian" to bash the yanks, sort of gives you an indentity, which is, we hate USA and its money grubbing ideology (that makes me Canadian).
But..... if North Vietnam started lobbing missiles at downtown Montreal or Toronto, who would we turn to for help?........France perhaps?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by drp_69

I like this. I also think that (wait for it) that Canada has consistently under-spent on defense with the previous, many liberal govts; indirectly relying on the USA military might (read coporate/Bush/crony greed, if you are so inclined) to defend us or help us out if it ever came to the 'push'.
Thats the irony of the situation in Canada. Its so cool and "Canadian" to bash the yanks, sort of gives you an indentity, which is, we hate USA and its money grubbing ideology (that makes me Canadian).
But..... if North Vietnam started lobbing missiles at downtown Montreal or Toronto, who would we turn to for help?........France perhaps?

It's one of the advantages, there are many disadvantages too. Goes both ways. Doesn't mean there aren't critisisms and none has the right to voice them.
I disagree also that Canada's only identity is that we hate the US.

[drp_69]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I disagree also that Canada's only identity is that we hate the US.

I am sorry and afraid that it is becoming that way.
So sad!

[FlamesAddiction]

The only reason a country would ever attack us on our own soil is because of our close relationship with the U.S. That is why it is important to distinguish ourselves.