"Anti-US"

[drp_69]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sorry to say, that 'aint gonna work' and we will still be lumped with the 'imperialist, infidel, running dogs', there is no way separate that blur. No matter how hard we try to pretend to hate our closet ally and neighbour. Its nuts in my opinion, but hey, let carry on doing it just in case the next extemist might avoid us. Oh pleeeeeze!

[nuckles]

Originally Posted by drp_69

Sorry to say, that 'aint gonna work' and we will still be lumped with the 'imperialist, infidel, running dogs', there is no way separate that blur. No matter how hard we try to pretend to hate our closet ally and neighbour. Its nuts in my opinion, but hey, let carry on doing it just in case the next extemist might avoid us. Oh pleeeeeze!

Sounds like you got a Hard on for Americans , I don't hate our Neighbours there goverment has just put themselves in a stupid position.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

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?

Well... history books tell us that Canada entered WWII out of an obligation to its mother country, Britain. Canada was barely independent of Britain, and WWII is seen as Canada's 'coming of age' as an independent state. Our options and US options on entering the war were not identical.

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.

You don't get that sense every time you watch Saving Private Ryan? Band of Brothers? US history books? All of it supports the ideal that the US saved the world from the Nazis because they are good and Nazis evil. While there may be some basis for that belief, I'm not naive enough to think that US administration/officials actually believed these lofty ideals. They were realists, they weighed actions, strategies, and payoffs.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by 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.

The number one reason a despot would attack us would be our land and our wealth. It would happen quickly. Don't fool yourself.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

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

Thank you.

None? So what's the point here then? That its ok to dress up national self-interest in a global self-interest dress, because everyone does it? Some global leader we've got there, comparing itself to the lowest common denominator?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

None? So what's the point here then? That its ok to dress up national self-interest in a global self-interest dress, because everyone does it? Some global leader we've got there, comparing itself to the lowest common denominator?

I'd rather have the US's interests guiding global interests than any other country. That's my point.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I'd rather have the US's interests guiding global interests than any other country. That's my point.

Well, I think the point is that when they 'guide global interest', they do it in such as way as to ensure that the US remains top dog economically and politically. This means finding ways to subjugate other countries economies to the benefit of the US. Do many nations practise this? Sure. Is it 'right' because of that? I don't think so. The US has a responsibility as 'global big brother' to ensure trade practises and military incursions are fair and justified (I'd like to think... maybe they have no responsibility to anyone but themselves...). There is a price to be paid for the foreign policies the US espouses, and their reaping that reward now in a brutally poor world image.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

America is always sticking their nose in other countries problems and not taking care of their own.

America has trillions of dollars to spend on war but they can't feed their own poor.

I am sorry but that is a BS argument. People make their own decisions on their own lives and they must live with the decisions they make. There is welfare and UI for those who just get a turn of bad luck but why would the US spend their money (they are quite highly in debt by the way) to help the poor when its likely it wouldnt do much. Its know that around 3-3.5% of the population either cant work or are lazy and wont work no matter what. That is why Alberta is thought to have nearly full employment even though the unemployment rate is at about 3.5%

I agree, I dont think the US should have any forces anywhere in the world with the exception of their own land, especially in the Mid East. We should let Europe deal with the Mid East - they are more than capable - heck France's Foreign Minister called Iran (a state that called for the extermination of an entire race) a STABALIZING force in the region.

MYK

[Azure]

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.

Still gave aid money Lanny, you can't argue with them.

The whole operation by the US government was screwed up, but no only by the Bush Administration, but also by Nagin who refused to evacuate the citizens, knowing he had the transportation to do so.

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?

Why would you even assume I'm referring to the Average Joe?

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?

Regardless Lanny, you and me know that instead of buying porn magazines or other needless stuff, that 2,500, as shorthanded as it may be, would be better spent on at least trying to replace the life you once owned. Had the government given 10 grand, IMO those people that wasted the 2,500 would have also wasted the 10 grand. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

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.

Why do you ask then?

[Azure]

Well... history books tell us that Canada entered WWII out of an obligation to its mother country, Britain. Canada was barely independent of Britain, and WWII is seen as Canada's 'coming of age' as an independent state. Our options and US options on entering the war were not identical.

Don't only look at Canada....wouldn't you say Britain entered the war to protect their own country from Nazi extremism?

You don't get that sense every time you watch Saving Private Ryan? Band of Brothers? US history books? All of it supports the ideal that the US saved the world from the Nazis because they are good and Nazis evil. While there may be some basis for that belief, I'm not naive enough to think that US administration/officials actually believed these lofty ideals. They were realists, they weighed actions, strategies, and payoffs.

Weren't you the one that said we shouldn't take our history/influence from movies?

The US did help save the world from the Nazi idealism, just like every other allied nation, regardless of their motives.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't only look at Canada....wouldn't you say Britain entered the war to protect their own country from Nazi extremism?

Whats your point? That countries went into WWII for reasons other than save the oppressed? Isn't that what I've been saying? Sure, Britain went to war to protect itself from Nazi invasion and domination.

Weren't you the one that said we shouldn't take our history/influence from movies?

Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. Thats why I quoted those sources as fallible and not representative of reality. Keep up.

The US did help save the world from the Nazi idealism, just like every other allied nation, regardless of their motives.

Um... ok, thanks for that. I don't think I've been saying anything to the contrary. Sometimes I think you're taking the least important points from a post, twisting them, and then asking questions about them.

[Azure]

Whats your point? That countries went into WWII for reasons other than save the oppressed? Isn't that what I've been saying? Sure, Britain went to war to protect itself from Nazi invasion and domination.

Whats my point? If you're going to talk about the motives for joining WW2, and criticize the US for joining, not to rid the world from evil, and rightfully so, then you should also include every other nation that joined WW2, based on the same motive.

That is the anti-US theory we're talking about here.

Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. Thats why I quoted those sources as fallible and not representative of reality. Keep up.

Um... ok, thanks for that. I don't think I've been saying anything to the contrary. Sometimes I think you're taking the least important points from a post, twisting them, and then asking questions about them.

Its not like you're doing anything different. Slowly but surely you've admitted that every single country entered WW2 based on their own motives, and not only the US.

It helps to be critical of every country that acts in the manner you are criticizing.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its not like you're doing anything different. Slowly but surely you've admitted that every single country entered WW2 based on their own motives, and not only the US.

It helps to be critical of every country that acts in the manner you are criticizing.

Sure, but I've also pointed out (and you're conveniently ignoring) that the US has a romantic view of its own history and image during WWII. The thread is about the US, but you want me to start talking about every other country? Thats your way of staying on topic? I'm starting to regret these posts... all you do is take a step back and to the side and start over.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

I don't know its in the news all the time. Vietnam has countless stories of American's raping and murdering civilians.

Wasn't there just a story in the news about 4 or 5 American soilder's gangbanging a 14 year old Iraqi girl?

There is always stories in the newspaper of American soilders raping women around their bases on foreign soil. This is just one example.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9511/japan_rape/pm/

So... 4 of 5 American soldiers represents all x thousand soldiers enough for it to be called "often"?

I guess that means that RedMan12 is Anti-US because at least one of his posts was Anti-US.... same faulty logic path.

Sure there are horrible American soldiers. I never denied that... but it's the exception and happens rarely, and not the rule or happen "often" or "in the news all the time" as you stated.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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.

Do you bring out and make vocal those policies that you agree with?

If there is nothing that you agree with, you are anti-US.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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.

Those that agree with the US on some of their policies are immediately labeled "pro-US" or "neocon" or something similar.

Just as no country... no government... no person has all positive ideas or policies, no country/government/person has all negative ideas or policies either.

If you blindly follow or blindly criticize, no matter what the subject, you deserve to be labeled.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sure, but I've also pointed out (and you're conveniently ignoring) that the US has a romantic view of its own history and image during WWII. The thread is about the US, but you want me to start talking about every other country? Thats your way of staying on topic? I'm starting to regret these posts... all you do is take a step back and to the side and start over.

You pointed out that the US has a romantic view of its own history, through "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers." And then you turn around and tell me not to watch movies in order to gain a perspective of history.

So which is it?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Azure

You pointed out that the US has a romantic view of its own history, through "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers." And then you turn around and tell me not to watch movies in order to gain a perspective of history.

So which is it?

What was wrong with Saving Private Ryan? By all accounts it was a very accurate account of D-Day and the fighting in France.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by White Doors

What was wrong with Saving Private Ryan? By all accounts it was a very accurate account of D-Day and the fighting in France.

Ask Agamemnon, since he's the one telling everyone not to watch movies in order to gain a perspective on history.

[White Doors]

Well it's certainly shouldn't be the only way to 'gain perspective on history' but it can add to it, sure. D-Day veterans said it was the best movie about it yet. You have to take that into account.

When did Agamemnon becomethe expert on history anyways?

[flamesfever]

I appreciate the need for constructive criticism of the US and its foreign policy, from within and from its allies, in order to make wise decisions. However at this point in time I feel we should avoid being over critical for a number of reasons:

• You can take any action and look at it cynically or the opposite. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

• By being over critical of the US, you play into the hands of extremists.

• The US has already shown signs of becoming more protectionist in nature i.e. the softwood lumber dispute, BSE etc. Many believe that one of the main causes of the Great Depression of the 30’s was a rise in protectionism throughout the world.

• The world needs the US and no country more than Canada.

• The US is sacrificing its young men and women in battle, is increasing its indebtedness, and is receiving very little appreciation for anything it does.

It seems obvious, at this point in time, that the US is over sensitive to criticism. Who wouldn’t be under the circumstances?

Just my opinion