americans overseas
- Started
- Last post
- 74 Responses
- Tekko0
Ok I live in Toronto, Canada...and I have to say that I am really scared about any country turning it's own corporate interests into a valid reason to police the world.
Maybe US can explain to me or to all of us why the United States of America, a country made up of citizens who's lineage spans the globe...feels the need to do this or better yet what right do they have to do this.
Is it a case of "We give you Joe Millionaire and you owe us everything in return or else."
P.S. Canada in my opinion does not look to the USA for protection against anything. We are very astute diplomats and see no need for war, ok maybe the war of 1812 was necessary.
P.S.S This conversation I know is getting heated again and I'm sorry for that. I just had to say something.
- vena0
"a country made up of citizens who's lineage spans the globe"
i think you answered your own question there. and it's worth pointing out that your reasoning, if applied to WW2, would have been a pretty bad situation. the "police the world" line was never as good as it sounded, as its reasoning is wholly flawed. if the US doesn't protect its allies, then they're not allies. if the US doesn't protect its own interests, then they're the first country *ever* to ignore this basic tenant of being a nation. none of this has anything to do with a so-called "policing the world."
as for canada not needing the USA's protection - that's both flawed and subject to an interesting fact. first, it's flawed in that canada most certainly relies on the US for economic reasons. second, it's subject to the fact that canada is quite capable militarily of protecting itself, having a good track record of kicking some serious ass in international war games.
- Tekko0
Yah the USA is really helping our economy. Have you seen the worth of our dollar? If you can call it a dollar. It's my opinion that our "reliance" on the USA economically is what's killing Canada. We have just as much if not more natural resources here in Canada, and fewer people to sustain. I really don't see why we need the USA for anything other than tourism, and bad TV.
- unfittoprint0
"I really don't see why we need the USA for anything other than tourism, and bad TV."
don't forget newstoday. they love you.
- Tekko0
Ok, I was just generalizing. There are lots of cool things we Canadians love about America including Newstoday, but I still think Canada needs to be more independent.
- ********0
Newstoday is not that ALL American either...
Folkert is Dutch for instance...and many NTB agents are from all over the globe...
- Tekko0
Cool, I didn't know that.
- finnpimp0
aaa-yeah, finland in the house. pumpin' at -10 C, feels like summer up here.
I should cut down on the nonsense.
- vena0
i'm sorry, but you sound really biased. i have to wonder if you really have any idea why canada has a hard time economically, or what position canada would be in without the strong trade ties between canada and the US (strongest trade alliance in the world, actually).
between canada's lack of agricultural infrastructure and the current state of water supplies, canada cannot exist without trade. it would very quickly fall apart. unless you know a way of collapsing space time, it's cheapest for canada to import from the closest resource. US food exports comprise 1/3 of the entire world's food imports, and canada is not exempt.
in fact, here's a quote from canada's own chamber of congress president, nancy hughes anthony, from just yesterday:
"...obviously a partnership -- and an even stronger partnership -- with the U.S. is absolutely fundamental to Canada's economy. Do we need to do business with the Americans, and do we need to do more? Absolutely. I think everyone would agree on that point."
more than $1.4 billion (US dollars) in trade occurs every day between the US and canada. you actually make one point very well: fewer people to sustain. however, your industry cannot survive in your market. you depend on the US and world market in the extreme to buy the materials you produce.
seriously, i don't think you researched this at all and are basing your opinion on some blind hate of america rather than the facts.
- ********0
"basing your opinion on some blind hate of america rather than the facts."
True, V.
Even I (who is quite critical towards US foreign policy) got tired of mindless bashing here lately.
Please let's not ignore the truth, or you may even look more silly to more people then Bush looks to more people...and that's not what we want, do we?
Let's be constructive.
- exador0
great points as always vena :)
good to see you around these days...
been a long while..i think we here in Canada are slightly biased against the war, and i think its for the following reasons...
1) we're so damn big a country, with so much empty wilderness, no country in their right mind would ever attack us...theyd end up lost in the big forest and never be seen again..
(ok..that was mostly just for fun)2) with a vast store of natural resources, virtually unlimited fresh water and our own oil desposits, its hard for us to contemplate attacking someone else for them...we gots it all right here, thankyaverymuch....
2) Canada has for a looooong time now had a pretty good reputation as a peacekeeper force..
as armies go, ours is obviously small in comparison to many others..especially our neighbors to the south...
but thats ok...we have a 10th the population...
and c'mon..what, are we gonna compete with the yanks on the most kick ass army?
not likely...
so we do what seems the most logical thing..
instead of a massive military we choose a slightly smaller one, and use it to help keep the peace..4) all that being said..
if someone, anyone, can produce unquestionably, some proof that this dude is more of a threat than half the tinpot dictors, including the dear leader of North Korea, and is more likely to start throwing weapons of mass destruction around..than say...oh..pakistan and india (who lets face it, are FAAAAR and away more likely to come to blows with them) then OK...go into iraq and have done with it...but...
if you can't find it..
cuz it aint there..just someone for the love of gawd admit that this is nothing more than old style empire expansion..
anyhow thats what it seems like to me vena..
(but then again, i get most of my material and info from my brother in law...one of the writers at http://zmag.org
:)
- ********0
"look more silly to more people then Bush looks to more people"
remove "more" here and there...I am a bit sick today...as in not well....on vitamin overdose now...
- vena0
actually exador, canada's been getting on some environmentalists' nerves lately concerning their water supply, which is why i mentioned it earlier. you're using more than your producing, paying less than it costs to produce, and without the infrastructure to adequetly reprocess disposed water.
also, you guys have a reputation for having a very well trained military that's very smart. what you lack in numbers, you've more than made up for in tactics and execution. i believe you've kicked our ass in war games more than once :)
as for proof in iraq - the UN security council has been saying that they don't believe Iraq disposed of any of its chemical or biological weapons since 1996. that they had them is really of no question. 1) we gave them the original raw materials to produce them, and 2) they admitted to having them. the inspector report released this morning is pretty clear that missles far exceeding the range allowance as stated by the UN are in iraq (300 missles, i believe), and there's no evidence they destroyed anything they said they had and were required to.
now, why should sadam be treated more sternly? well, there's the whole ethnic clensing of kurds, their ability and professed willingness to use far reaching chemical and biological agents, and their continued deceit and defiance of UN disarmament requirements.
- toolius0
There are no ties between 911 and the current possible pre-emptive strike on Iraq?
When 911 happened bush said that the US would go after any terrorist states or states who sponsor terrorists. This is exactly what he accused Iraq of doing even though there is actual proof that everyone from Saudi Arabia to the good ol' USA are also guilty of that.
Nobody was talking about attacking Iraq earlier in 2001. Not since 98'. Though the Iraqi and Afghanistan warplans were on Bush's desk prior to 911 it wasn't until AFTER that the people would go for it.
Saddam would not attack the US. To do so would be sucide for him. The terrorist on 911 were not a 'state'. They were desperate terrorists who HAD NOTHING TO LOSE. Saddam has EVERYTHING to lose.
The only reason Saddam has to attack the US is if the US attacks first.
The only reason the US has to attack is for Oil.
The US has spent 5 TRILLION on nuclear weapons. If in fact these weapons were created to be used as a deterrant from being attacked then the US wasted 5 TRILLION USD. If that money was not wasted (as I'm sure Bush would have you believe then there is NO reason to attack Iraq.
Behind every conflict. war or terrorist event there is someone who stands to gain monetarily from it. Those are the people that should be inspected.