»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
What is Bush's foreign policy?
| The Alley |
|
What is Bush's foreign policy? |
|
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space 
|
Recently Bush cancelled a scheduled trip to Canada when Colin Powell was asked by a canadian reporter if this was a snub due to Canada's stance on the Iraq war. Powell admitted that it was indeed but added that we shouldn't worry as neighbours it will eventually blow over. Is international relations the place for petty emotions and were Canadians not entitled to their own opinion? The Bush administrations foreign policy is absolutely appaling, this war was fought for the Iraqi freedom but once the looting began soldiers did not assist, when asked they said it was not their mission to police. I found that amusing when you consider there were alot of military units keeping a sharp eye on oil wells. For the People..yes. And while the US continually stated that they did not wish to undermine the UN I find it appaling that now that the war is over the US has denied UN inspectors access to search for those Chemical weapons and others of mass destruction, saying that their own inspectors were on the case and the UN would simply get in the way. Is this good policy, is this the way to endear yourself to the international community? |
||
| © Copyright 2003 raphael giuffrida - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
No.  K |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sadly, I feel that one of the casualties of this time will be the damage of relations between the US and Canada. I will say without hesitation I hold Canada in very high regards and have many Canadian friends. Even so, with the instances of booing our national anthem at sporting events, which began with American kids - KIDS! - going up to Canada playing hockey to be booed and have insults screamed at them by the Canadian fans to now where there have been increasing instances in the professional sports arena, to the Candian Prime Minister making it a point to proclaim loudly that any Iraqi war criminals that would make it to Canada would not be turned over to America - I'm afraid I am losing some of the respect, also. Having a different view, or engaging in non-participation is one thing...antagonistic gestures are another. It appears the PM has decided he can increase his popularity, especially in his native Quebec, by America-bashing. Last week when I went to play golf with fellow Moose members, they told me the Canadian flag was being taken down at all Moose lodges. If you are not familiar with the Moose organization, they are among the most patriotic organizations in existence who believe in God and democracy. The American and Canadian flags have always flown together. Now the Canadian flag has been replaced by the official P.O.W. flag and I find that very sad. Would it upset Americans that Bush would cancel his trip there for those reasons? Highly unlikely..many Americans would agree. It appears to me Bush's stance is this...disagree if you want - that's your right. Badmouth us if you want - but not while your hand is extended in mock friendship. Intentionally undermine us and there will be repurcussions. I, who have heard other countries engage in America-bashing ever since I was born with smiling faces and hands extended for cash, find it almost refreshing for an American president to finally take this kind of attitude. No, the rest of you may not but then that just gives you more bashes to add to the past and current bashes...so everyone gets something, right? |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
I’m with Balladeer in one respect in that I’m not sure that the American Government wants to endear itself to the international community. There’s a joke going around the UK at the moment that the reason it’s taking so long to find the WMD’s is one of logistics, after all it takes time to ship them in and the “Made in Iraq” stickers haven’t even been printed yet. I’m not for one minute suggesting that Iraq didn’t have the weapons or that America would fabricate evidence if they failed to find any. My point in repeating the joke is to show that the atmosphere and perception of America outside the US exists that allows the potential for such beliefs to become widespread and the American Government seems intent on feeding that potential. Contradictory statements coming from America don’t seem to be helping, it has been maintained throughout this conflict that the Iraqi people would be free to choose their own Government. Yet when some Iraqis declared that Iraq should become an Islamic state the American Government stated that they wouldn’t allow that to happen. Either they’re free to choose or they’re not you can’t have it both ways. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Oh please Balladeer, if we're going to talk about booing national anthems as a sports fan I can give countless examples where New York fans have booed the canadian anthem. We've come to expect it during the NBA playoffs and the NHL playoffs but nothing is made out of it in your media other than a shoulder shrug and an 'Oh those Crazee New Yorkers' comment..so don't you dare begin with that. "Badmouth us if you want - but not while your hand is extended in mock friendship. Intentionally undermine us and there will be repurcussions. I, who have heard other countries engage in America-bashing ever since I was born with smiling faces and hands extended for cash, find it almost refreshing for an American president to finally take this kind of attitude" How absolutely ridiculous, smiling faces hands extended for cash..do you realize how many billions of dollars go both ways? How many debts are incurred both ways. I truly hope you didn't mean Canada with that comment. Intentionally undermining you? We were the first to reach out with aid for 911 and the first to join you in Afghanistan and in Bush's famous thank you speech where he thanked countries A-Z he never once mentioned Canada. Is that the level of respect that Canada commands from your government? And here's a thought, when a country as friendly and semi-docile as Canada has serious opposition to your methods in this "War for the Iraqi people" and is 'bashing' you isn't it time to maybe question your methods and policies at least a little? Or would that be unpatriotic? For you to spin the snubbing incident with the argument "Well Chretien did such and such first' (which is complete BS) is as incredibly childish as Bush turning his back on the visit. You never once mention the other points about UN inspectors or the looting. I said International policy not US Canadian relations. Bush's polocies are tearing your nation apart and his 'attitude' is pure simple-mindedness. Take the time to step back and take a serious look at how these policies may enrage or disturb other countries, it's not unpatriotic to question things and not tow the line. My god when a nation is burning Dixie chix albums and memoribilia for a simple comment can't you see there's a madness? What's next book burning? I will never bring children into a world so narrow minded and completlely void of fresh thought or 'personal' opinions. Where normally intelligent people cannot think for themselves but choose to tow the line and spew propaganda. And that's not a shot at the US but the entire international community including Canada. Bunch of children in the sandbox, well to hell with all of them. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-26-2003 08:04 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see you have chosen to make your remarks insulting on a personal level, which I certainly did not do to you in my reply. That proves my point fairly well, I think.. Have a good life... |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to direct me to the comments of Powell that indicated the U.S. was snubbing Canada. I read the comments of Powell in the Canadian media I have access to and read them entirely different. But then, as I recall, the Canadians felt snubbed by the U.S. after 9/11. Now they are being snubbed again? Powell said: Canada and the United States are "frankly inseparable" and the U.S. will get over whatever disappointments existed in recent weeks, the American secretary of state said Tuesday. Canada and the U.S. "occupy this one huge land," said Powell. Differences will come along, but the common history strongly binds the two countries, he said. The minister added that disagreeing with our neighbour was not an easy choice, but Canada was not prepared to "risk the lives of our men and women." Graham told the audience that the U.S. accepted Canada's position on Iraq and vowed the two countries will work together on many cross-border issues. Graham said that President George Bush's decision to cancel his May visit to Canada should not be seen as a snub. (that is your minister, not ours) "When I spoke to Secretary of State Colin Powell today he said he and the president were looking forward to working with myself and the prime minister," said Graham. You will have to forgive Balladeer, he might well have a friend or relative in Iraq as I and a few other million Americans do; and being concerned about some perceived snub is not particularly high on our list of concerns at the moment. The Americans I know accept the fact the Canadians did not want to risk the lives of their men and women. We did. Such is life. The Russians, French and Germans may be a different story in that it is generally viewed that those three countries put their economic oil interests above the freedom and lives of the Iraqi people. They actively worked against the U.S. Most Americans I know don't particularly appreciate the efforts of those three countries. The purpose of the thread seems to once again attack the U.S. So be it. The only legitimate purpose I can see for the thread is to attempt to create disharmony and discord. You have clearly succeeded. Well done. Perhaps this shows why the U.S. should try the French preferred route in the U.N. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/sto ry.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030426/190649144.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20030426BAG52D Perhaps a part of the world community is not trying to make cooperation with the U.S. one of its priorities either. This thread certainly is a start. [This message has been edited by Tim (04-26-2003 09:28 PM).] |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Tim, "it is generally viewed that those three countries put their economic oil interests above the freedom and lives of the Iraqi people" It might be the general view but that doesn’t make it true in the same way that the claim that America only acted because of their oil interests probably isn’t true either. The difference is in the perception, Americans may believe that those three countries acted because of oil but that isn’t widely believed outside of the US. Conversely that American action is dictated by oil isn’t believed within the US but it is held as a strong possibility abroad. "They actively worked against the U.S." Strange as it may seem that’s actually allowed, especially if the countries involved don’t agree with American policies. What is strange is that you seem to be willing to accept countries that don’t agree but don’t openly voice their opposition while vilifying any country that has the nerve to speak their mind. France Germany and Russia were opposed to any resolution that contained an immediate trigger for war, it is and was their right to freely choose and to promote their point of view, in that respect they are no different from Canada or Great Britain. BTW I’d take anything written in the Telegraph with a pinch of salt if I were you. http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/04/week_3/22_gall.html |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Yes, it is allowed that countries work contrary to the interests of the U.S. But it only seems fair the U.S. be able to recognize this fact and act accordingly. And if it is the rest of the world's perception that France, Russia and Germany do not have significant economic ties to Iraq and its oil, then so be it. That goes a bit beyond perception to most American minds into the realm of fact. [This message has been edited by Tim (04-26-2003 09:59 PM).] |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Tim, Having significant economic ties to Iraq and its oil wasn’t my point of contention it was rather your assertion that those ties were the reason why France, Germany and Russia were opposed to immediate action. In my opinion such an assertion flies closer to the realm of fiction than fact. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Can't argue with logic like that... end of my involvement, there is no way I can intellectually respond to that statement. Have a nice night all. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Balladeer if I insulted you I apologize but I still feel disturbed how easily you can spin this and talk of anti-americanism when I clearly stated it was against Bush's policy. I'm an outsider so to question American policy makes me Anti-American and an American who questions policy is called unpatriotic. How many more labels and excuses? With this kind of division amongst your citizens and amongst the UN nations isn't it just possible that maybe these weren't the correct steps to take? Can't you see where the refusal to allow UN inspectors into Iraq may seem to some curious? Tim I no longer have the exact quote but it was something to the effect what can I say? If you ask about 911 and why we feel snubbed it's because we are brothers and we bled along with you on september 11. There were Canadians in the towers, US travellers were diverted to Canadian cities and taken care of and with the kindness and open homes and Bush doesn't even name our country? It's no secret that relations between Bush and Chretien were never strong, Chretien and Canada had incredible relations under the Clinton administration. and this Tim? "You will have to forgive Balladeer, he might well have a friend or relative in Iraq as I and a few other million Americans do; and being concerned about some perceived snub is not particularly high on our list of concerns at the moment." Maybe you'll be surprised to know that Canadian troops are stationed in Afghanistan, patrolling the gulf and oh yeah there is a a large number alongside your troops in Iraq as part of a co-op program. And Tim to say that this thread is an attack is an attack on the US is utter nonsense. I seperate Government from the people and to think with all the friends I have here on PIP that I'd do such a thing is ludicrous. My anger is toward a) the Bush administrations handling of things b) the incredible denial that the US government could possibly do wrong c) the 'new' patriotism, which demands that everybody fall in line and support without question or be labelled unpatriotic or rebels rousers ooooooh those Evil Dixie Chix |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Probably not, but I don't think endearing ourselves to the international community is a high priority at the moment when we are still working to maintain order and begin the process of helping Iraq install new leadership. I definitely think the U.N. should be involved though, especially with continuing humanitarian relief, and down the road, the resumption of inspections if they are not satisfied with the job the U.S. has done. I think it would be a good idea too to use the U.N. peace keeping forces to quell looting and rioting during the current power vacuum. quote: a) Raph, how would you handle things if you were in charge? I'd be interested in hearing some constructive ideas on how things could be done differently. b) That's quite a blanket statement. Of course we are capable of 'doing wrong', just as any other country is. Who denies that? Most Americans happen to believe now though that Bush is doing something 'right'. That's not the same thing though as your statement asserts. And given that it seems most of the world nowadays doesn't give much credance to right and wrong (everything is relative, no?), who makes that judgment, the wise ones who sit on the U.N.? God help us. c) No one that I know is "falling in line" and not questioning things so as not to be labeled unpatriotic. They, as most Americans just happen to support most of the current policies of the administration. Evil, no, we don't think the Dixie Chix are evil, I think incredibly stupid sums them up pretty accurately. Since the majority of Americans took offense at their unique brand of Bush bashing on foreign soil during a time of war, well, I'd say that they will definitely feel it in their pocketbooks. quote: C, I beleive that it has been maintained throughout that the Iraqi people would be free to choose their own form of representative government. Allowing another Islamic state form of government would not fit that criteria. All of Iraq's people have to be represented and share in the governing, not just the religious element of the country. quote: This statement seems, to me anyway, to prove the strong anti-US bias that is rampant throughout the world. The world seems eager to think the best of France, Germany and Russia regarding their motives but seems not so eager to give the U.S. the same deference regarding her motives. Why is that? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Probably not, but I don't think endearing ourselves to the international community is a high priority at the moment when we are still working to maintain order and begin the process of helping Iraq install new leadership. I definitely think the U.N. should be involved though, especially with continuing humanitarian relief, and down the road, the resumption of inspections if they are not satisfied with the job the U.S. has done. I think it would be a good idea too to use the U.N. peace keeping forces to quell looting and rioting during the current power vacuum Well my point is that one of the major arguments people had were whether those weapons did exist. And its not just about endearing yourselves to the community. To actually say no we have our own inspectors we don't need yours completely undermines the UN's role. As for the cleanup humantarian aid and peacekeeping Canada was always waiting and has been asked to include RCMP officers to train Iraqi police. We've always maintained that while we didn't want this 'war' we were there to help in some way. and as for the Bush government "working to maintain order and begin the process of helping Iraq install new leadership" I find it hard to resolve the promise of free and democratic elections with Rumsfields comments that the US would not allow a government of Clerics. Well is it free choice or not? Raph, how would you handle things if you were in charge? Oh come on I never assumed I had all the answers but I can say that there is such thing as tact and diplomacy and Bush has rarely shown either. I wouldn't cancel a visit out of spite over a disagreement in opinion. That's quite a blanket statement. Of course we are capable of 'doing wrong', just as any other country is The blanket statement was directed those who have responded with spins and infallible mentality. And if you truly believe MOST americans really do approve of what Bush has done then why all the turmoil and backlash? And as for no one falling in line that's just not true. I never said Everyone is but to deny that there ARE people falling into line is madness. There are many who disagree with the war but say well we have to support Bush's choice, they label it solidarity, or patriotism. But for many its fear of being labeled, or fear of being different from the majority view. If you haven't seen those who question things being attacked as unpatriotic then you have to look no further than this board and some of the poems that were posted early on in this whole mess. And as for the Dixie Chix, was she not entitled to her opinion, to free speech, to disagree with her government. Regardless of what she said no matter how heinous people make it out to be,is it right to burn and crush records, to label them rebels and sluts? The Dixie Chix? For god's sakes their as american as apple pie and to turn to mob record burning shows a disturbing fanaticism. What next burn them at the stake? I've said enough, I'm sorry I began this thread now, Balladeer's offended, Tim thinks I planned this to stir up controversy. For an outsider to even remotely question Bush's methods I'm labeled Anti-American while many of my american friends who happen to agree with me are labeled Unpatriotic.. it's a no win situation. I questioned a governments policies and its been spun into a slander of its people. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-27-2003 03:57 AM).] |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
My anger is toward a) the Bush administrations handling of things b) the incredible denial that the US government could possibly do wrong c) the 'new' patriotism, which demands that everybody fall in line and support without question or be labelled unpatriotic I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE ORIGINAL POST I do not know or care to how this conversation turned anything towards anti-Americanism - I did not see anything in the original post stating this. Living RIGHT next to Canada - I can surely tell you that they are indeed our allies - always were and will be - but that is not the issue now is it? NO 1: The US Govt has handled this poorly - this is plain to see - who or what handled it is not the case - perse - it is still the US govt - regardless of party - affiliation - President . . . MY govt jumped in without approval from the UN - without the approval of many Americans and without the approval of many other countries. Yes, you may say - but isnt this democracy? By todays standards - yes, but not quite what the good men so long ago painstakingly envisioned. 2: The govt is run by HUMANS - not supermen or perfect beings - of course things go wrong - this is life - accept it and move on 3: The new patriotism does disturb me. For years - I have not seen an American flag on a house - only at Local Posts, Govt buildings and schools. After 9/11 -every single home had a flag - every child had an Old Navy flag T - shirt (of course the whole family had one). Banners for your car antenna sold on late night t.v.? (shaking head) Bottom line is the flags should have always been there like they were when I was a child. (btw - NYS sold out of flags that year - a record I am sure) Doesnt mean you are "unpatriotic" to have an opinion, on the contrary, it makes you that much more patriotic for sticking to and intelligently backing your belief. Regarding many of the foolish acts towards groups, musicians, political parties, countries etc: all of us just need to take it down a notch and FOCUS on the problem at hand instead of creating more issues to deal with. We can all agree that there are too many already . . . Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion. [This message has been edited by littlewing (04-27-2003 04:22 AM).] |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Denise, I understand that America wants a representative government in Iraq, in fact that’s just my point American Officials have stated that they will not allow Iraq to become a Theocracy but if that’s what the majority want who are America to deny them? 60% of the population of Iraq are Shiia Muslims, traditionally well organised and resolute in their belief that there should be no separation or distinction between church and state. The other 40% is comprised of Sunni Muslims, Christians and non-denomination Arabs. If a free and democratic vote was taken tomorrow, and if the option of a Theocracy was available, the chances are the majority of the Iraqi people would vote in favour of a Muslim state. Under those circumstances what right has America to dictate which form of government presides over Iraq? quote: "This statement seems, to me anyway, to prove the strong anti-US bias that is rampant throughout the world. The world seems eager to think the best of France, Germany and Russia regarding their motives but seems not so eager to give the U.S. the same deference regarding her motives. Why is that?" I believe it’s due to American Foreign Policy post 9/11, America has lost the trust of many people outside the US including some Governments. Belief in the integrity of France, Germany and even Russia has in contrast enjoyed a strengthening of support. America, in the eyes of many foreign observers went from hero to zero in an amazingly short period of time, which in my opinion was largely due to Americas move towards a unilateralist stance and a backlash to chequebook diplomacy. My greatest worry in all this is that the rifts that have appeared between America and the UN and America and individual countries could widen rather than narrow. I believe America is likely in the coming weeks to table an omnibus resolution at the UN which seems to be designed to fail. It’s likely to include a clause that legitimises the invasion of Iraq; the transfer from the UN of control of the oil for food program and the acceptance of America or its designates as the interim economic and governmental controller of Iraq. If it is passed those that opposed the war will officially be classed as wrong and if it fails America will once again point to the ineffectiveness of the UN and carry on regardless. As far as America is concerned this is a win/win situation and the UN and those countries that opposed the war face a possibly irrevocable loss either way. [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (04-27-2003 09:21 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: One of the tenets of a 'free' society Eddie is that it protects the rights of the minorities. I don't really like to call up such hackneyed analogies as the slavery issue in the United States -- but if there was a majority opinion in favor of it (which there was at the time of the Civil War) it is still a problem. A Shiite, fundamentalist Iran-style government in Iraq wouldn't grant the kind of widespread freedom that is the goal in Iraq. The rationale has long been that it was better to maintain evil dictators and iron fisted monarchs in the middle east particularly to prevent majority 'votes' from installing Islamist Fascists into power. Democracy, however, is not about simple majority rule. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I am not particularly surprised the quote was not located. I am still in the position of hearing Canadians feel snubbed from some perceived slight of which I am unable to determine the factual underpinnings. In any event, I applaud Canadians who support their men and women who risk their lives for what they view a just cause. I even understand the Canadians feeling patriotic thoughts for perceieved, although unsubstantiated snubs, by an American president. Unfortunately, I am still am unable to comprehend the logic employed in the attacks upon the United States in this thread. Therefore, I am unable to respond logically to an argument I find to have no basis in logic or common sense. I apologize for my ignorance. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
LR, That’s a valid point but my question was more aimed at who gets to choose which type of Government rules Iraq, is it the American Government or the people of Iraq or the people of Iraq as long as the American Government agrees with the choice? Tim, Not seeing the logic or common sense in opposing arguments is what we’re all guilty of, that’s when talking about the issues becomes even more important. Just because you or I don’t see the logic in each others arguments doesn’t mean it’s not there it just means we can’t see it. As far as attacking the US goes… well frankly I don’t see it that way (though I could be wrong), I see criticism and a lot of questioning but if any of my remarks came across as an attack on the US I sincerely apologise, that wasn’t my intent. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I am not particularly surprised the quote was not located. As for the quote I admit I cannot find the exact comment as and may have mistakenly mixed some of Powell's comments made elsewhere with U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci who has blasted the canadian government(and not without reason and yet not the place of an ambassador)where he said that "There is disappointment in Washington, that Canada is not supporting us fully." admitting to short-term strains as a result of Canada's position. Strains I have personally seen in my business sector where american companies have refussed to buy product from canadian suppliers. And listen Tim, I'm not at all pleased with Chretien's handling of things with the US either. Instead of claiming i'm fueling antiamericanism you may want to READ my posts. And that's not a shot at the US but the entire international community including Canada. Bunch of children in the sandbox, well to hell with all of them. Did you catch that? It's a shot at all governments and the silly crap that's going on. As for the factual underpinning of a percieved slight well rewind the tapes and find Bush's 911 speech to see how high we rank in the minds of his administration. Or watch the crossfire shows and listen to what some of your senators and ambassadors are saying. We get american broadcasts and CNN, we can hear. The perception that Canadians aren't supportive, aren't good neighbours is a HUGE slight. We didn't support this 'war', and neither did most of the world. How easily you condemn our non-involvment but forget Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Korea etc etc WW1 and WW2, you remember WW2 right, where Americans didn't get involved for the first two years? Oh that must mean they were anti-canadian anti-british? I don't even know how this became solely a US vs Canada issue!! My original posts also questioned the denial of UN inspectors into Iraq as well as the issue of policing. Unfortunately, I am still am unable to comprehend the logic employed in the attacks upon the United States in this thread. Therefore, I am unable to respond logically to an argument I find to have no basis in logic or common sense. I apologize for my ignorance Tim I don't know how many times I have to say this, I'm not anti-american I'm anti Bush Policy. If you refuse to seperate government from people the problem is yours not mine. But if it makes you feel better to label me Anti-American by all means, whatever makes you feel better. No matter how many time's I have seperated the people from the policy you've spun it as ANTI-AMERICAN and I you've simply proven the narrow mindedness and ignorance that the Bush propaganda sold you. How dare you call me Anti-american for simply questioning Bush a man who was't even rightfully elected. I canjust as easily question and rip apart Chretien's government which i have in the past and will continue to do until he is replaced. Anti Anti Anti Stop crying victim [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-27-2003 02:04 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
The only ANTI in this thread is Anti logic..as Crazy said above I don't think any of us are seeing it especially with so high an emotional topic, with that i'll read your comments but with to bow out of this thread. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Has anybody read what I posted? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The simple minded and arrogant in the crowd hereby bid their adieu... I know full well what your words say, as I say, they don't make sense to me... I apologize for my simple mindessness.. ciao |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Apology accepted Sue I read thanks [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-27-2003 04:17 PM).] |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
I will not get into the details of this thread, as it spreads away from original post.I will say that the actions of this adminstration seem deliberate, to deny UN inspecters access is deliberate.It is this adminstrations way of saying............yes, the UN can be made not to matter, if the UN doesn't get on board....we will dictate policy.(don't hurt me Severn, observation only) Would be nice to see a more peacefull policy out of all this, but I fear my country will only harden against opposition.As an after note, What has your country done to change things?(not talking about Canada, whom has done alot), but talking about those countries with no power, and no enemies, who only possess opinions and never feel loss, or responsability. Jason |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Don't be sorry. Michael and Tim do this on just about every thread that involves America. It's becoming quite humorous. MIchael is one of the most hypersensitive people your ever gonna meet on the internet. Hell, he gets offended even when you don't say anything. Only Tim can say something like this: quote: He states an opinion, that you're an anti-American, then immediately modifies it so that he doesn't have to stand by it. It's a nice trick. If a bit disingenuous the forth or fifth time around . . . . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Was just wondering if you were AWOL Brad. Eddie: What gives America the right? I dunno. 28,000 bombs. The Shiites at least have the right again to hit themselves with hammers. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
well, you got a chuckle out of me Brad... that quote says I opined someone was anti-American? Cannot someone make anti-American statments and still be pro-American? I read the comments made as being anti-U.S. I do not see them as being pro-American. I was told they were not anti-U.S., they were anti-Bush. I don't follow that logic. If the majority of Americans support the policies of the president and someone indicates those policies are simple minded and arrogant, and those are policies supported by the American people, it follows the American people are simple minded or arrogant for supporting those policies. The other alternative I suppose is that we are all brainwashed. Yes, I comprehend the words, but I do not follow the logic. Just so there is not confusion, I did not intend a qualifier, I take the comments as anti-American. That is a right Americans hold dear. (to criticize and oppose, but to also support) The statements made disagree with the policies and views of the American president and the American people who support those policies and views. If you feel my views on my country are disingenous Brad, that is certainly your opinion. If we are going to play semantics, I suspect you will win. Word games are not my forte. It may well be it is humorous that I stand up for views I believe. I find your views rather predictible, and have a fair inkling of how you are going to reply to anyone supporting positions of the United States. I do not know that makes you disingenous or particularly humorous, just consistent. |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I've intentionally stayed out of this fracus because I felt it was a Lose/Lose situation. I am, however, going to exrecise my right to change my mind and make a few simple statements. I will begin by saying that I am not doing this to begin/continue any arguments or to insult anyone. If tht is what happens then I will apologize in advance. having said that: Aenimal- Originally, the mission was not to police the areas that had been cleared of hostilities. I did not then, nor do I now agree that they should have remained docile on this point, but rather just pointing out an interesting reality. Protecting the oil wells WAS, however, a stated goal of the conflict. I have- admittedly- dropped my obsessive viewing of the Middle East with everything that was going on in my life, and with the chance of my foster son being injured decreasing so much. I do seem to recall, however, that the military forces are now being used in conjunction with the Iraqi constabulatory to maintain a measure of order. It might be a bit late, but it is something. As for the inspectors, I would have to -temporarily- agree with the decision not to allow Mr. Blix and company back into the country just yet. During the last stages of the conflict, during the battle for Baghdad, a significant weapons cashe was found in a building that Hans Blix HIMSELF inspected. Now that the war is over he's going to do a better job?? I would concede the point that a couple of outside observers would be a good thing, however I do not agree with turning it over to the UN at this time. Allowing the UN to completely take over the humanitarian effort is completely acceptible. I don't feel there is anyone that does it better. Balladeer- I do not actually feel that long term relations between North and South are even going to get a bruise. I don't even feel that they are going to be damamged in the short-term. I am completely unaware of any of the statements being quoted in this thread, however, reading them here, it just seems like it's another case of "We don't get along, deal with it." For whatever reason, The American President and the Canadian PM (if I understand it properly) are just simply shooting their sewers off about a truckload of "Who-friggin'-cares". Just because I don't like a former boss, and denounce everything he stands for doesn't mean that every manager I meet is that way. I happened to like the one that replaced him. It happens. I, as a very conservative American, did not read any American bashing statements in the original posting, and find it quite ludicrous that anyone did. Everyone is talking on here about anti-American and anti-Canandian sentiments, yet NO ONE that I have EVER talked to (and I talk for a living) has stated anything against the canadian people or their government. I have found the opinions to range between love and respect to complete ambivelence. Anyone who half studies American history will see the Canadian's fingerprints embedded in the pools of blood shedby American fighting men. When America was attacked for the second time (the World Trade Centers were hit twice) Canada was on scene before the dust settled. I have friends from another discussion board that sent me condolences on the off chance I might have known anyone there. This is- to my rememberance- the ONLY conflict that the Canadians did not drop everything to become involved in. And as I stated in another thread here somewhere, even Michael Jordan sat out of the game once in a while. Canada just happened to choose this particular game to call in sick (so to speak). To answer another statement, I don't see this as Canada holding out a glad hand and then snubbing us with the other. See above for my reasons. The ones that I would see that happening with would be the "Terrible Trio". The US has done more to protect French interests in the past 100 years than the French themselves did. And now, they want to damn us for the conflict and then they want us to give them a stake in the rebuilding contracts that are going to be worth billions of dollars to their economy. When the old Soviet Union had the worst winter on record, and their people were literally starving, they came screaming to the US for wheat and financial aid (and we were ENEMIES at the time). When the international community was demanding reparations at the end of WWI and the Germans were unable to handle it, the US stepped in and paid a great amount of their war debt for them... including the cash PM Chamberlain wanted for Britain... and also assisted them with economic aid to get their country back in order. Enter WWII. When the Wall came down, the US sent billions in economic assistance to help with the merging of the two former enemies. Enter this. Kind of disingenuous, eh? Oh, I almost forgot... last one, I promise... I have been to several sporting events with the Canadians challenging the Americans, and have heard the boos from Americans in a few states, not just NY. I don't see it as anti-Canadian sentiments as much as the Expos, or the Maple Leafs, or whatever being the "enemy" of the day. It is the same as the Degers being boo'd every time they enter Cincinnati for a Reds/Dodgers contest. Anyhow, those are my thoughts, and (bad commercial quote imminent...) I thank you for your support. When the morning cries and you don't know why... [This message has been edited by Ringo (04-27-2003 10:36 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tim, What I called into question was the apology, not your views. I think you've fleshed out your views well enough to validate my point. I hope my views are predictable, I've stated and restated them enough times. Curious though if you are still getting them wrong as many have here. So, what are they? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The original thread started with a statement that Secretary of State Powell stated to the Canadian press that President Bush had snubbed the Canadians. I did not see that as being a statement Powell would make. I also found it unusual that such a statement was not plastered all over the American media. I checked the Canadian media and was unable to find such a statement, in fact I found the contrary to be the case. Perhaps the statement was made, I just would like to see some documentation. Perhaps if my apologies are perceived as disingenous, I should re-evaluate my choice of words. I do admit to being somewhat frustrated at that statement being made as a starting point to criticize policies of the United States. If Powell made such a statement, I am clearly in the wrong and a disservice has been done to our close allies to the north. If such a statement was not made, then a misleading statement was made to set the tone for the rest of the thread. If I have crossed the line, I apologize. Not for my positions which I still hold, but my presentation. Brad, would you like the Reader's Digest Condensed or the Unabridged version? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Oh, one or two sentences should do nicely. It's not a difficult position -- or perhaps it is if you can't see the difference between being anti-administration and anti-American. The only thing I'd add is my position on rhetorical moves. Oh, and one more question, why is that many people accuse those you disagree with as having an 'agenda' and excuse those you agree with by making a mistake? Didn't George Carlin do a bit about that?  |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Jason - don't worry, I'm staying out of this one...and it's something I've observed myself... K |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
quote: Aboslutely, Canada is entitled to its own opinion, and no one has agrued that. But as a Nation we are entitle to express our umberage that our neighbor, ally, and a most favored nation, chose not to back us up at a critical time. President Bush chose this 'snub' to express that umberage, he did not advocate invading Canada, or any other such activity. He chose a simple act to say "We respect your stand, we are disappointed you chose not to stand with us." He chose to do this because as the leader of this country it was his responsibility to express ourselves on the National stage. If my neighbor watches me jump a thug get in a fight in the front of my house and stands there doing nothing, I would feel less than happy with that neighbor. Would I move or try to force him to move, or build a big wall between our houses? No, would I go to his next BBQ? Equally no. But soon, relations would return to normal, and my neighbor and I both understand that. Now that it is done with, things will return to normal as far as relations between us. No lasting harm was done. The harm lies in those who chose to make a mountain out of an anthill, those who look to any incident, any comment, any anything, to trash the leaders of our nation, or our government. Our leaders and our government are not perfect. They never have been, and we can look to both sides of the aisle to find stupidy, corruption, and immorality. But that does nothing to strengthen our nation. We have an obligation to question our government, equal to our obligation to support our government. Constantly looking for any possible thing we disagree with and making an unweildy issue of it serves no useful purpose. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
"IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." God Dickens was a genius!! I had (hmm... seems to be a cliche on this thread) decided to stay out of this one but... Another quote, a la Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" Firstly I must say that intolerance is showing it's ugly head around here. At one point while I was reading, I started wondering when Ron would step in to act in his Umpire's role but maybe the arrangement around venting in the Alley is a little looser than I thought (let me assure everyone that that was NOT a sarcastic comment... tempers are a little high in here so I just thought I should declare that) I see nothing wrong with the original post, quite frankly. In fact I would have added that a level of incompetence, bordering on stupidity, in safeguarding the heritage of three thousand years, has resulted in much of the history of mankind going up in flames or into thieves' hands. One wonders if there was something deliberate about this. Now I know that my last statement may result in an online butt-kicking but I am from the school that teaches that saying what you honestly think is not a crime. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but somehow I do not think this is one of them. Lets face it, Americans are ultra-sensitive right now. They are ultra-sensitive to the point of near paranoia BECAUSE of (I believe) inept foreing policies and diplomatic practices by thier Government. How so? Simple: The foreign policies practiced by Bush et al have resulted in world disapproval, which has resulted in Americans feeling threatened which... need I say more? The last poll I saw, said that 70% of Americans approved of Bush and his policies but I think that it is high time that US citizens start wondering what went wrong after 9/11. Lets face it people, there has never before been such an outpouring of love and support for the United States as happened after 9/11. The ENTIRE world, save a mere few, was behind America, INCLUDING France, Russia, and Germany and Canada. I read so much about cooperation from those countries in trying to catch those responsible for the horror of 9/11. Which brings me to my Dicken quote... It was the best of times (in terms of support) for America, in the worst of times (in terms of the events of 9/11 AND in terms of the inability of the US government to make the best of that support) In plain terms, the Bush administration dropped the ball. Period. So why, you ask, do so many Americans support the Bush administration? Elementary, my dear Watson: After what happened at the WTC, Americans are in an extremely sensitive collective state of mind. They see their country and their way of life as under threat from any many (?) directions. It is human nature for people in a situation like that to be apprehensive. It is also human nature for people in situations like that to look for strong leadership and like him or not, in George Bush they see strong leadership. Trouble is, in George Bush they also have wrong leadership... Any man who can be called The Leader of The Free World must have certain attributes which few others have. One of these is the ability to be calm in the eye of a storm and to see the bigger picture at ALL times. He cannot afford to be totally parochial. I said in an earlier post some weeks ago that the business of America is the business of the world. What George Bush did was to forget this and the result is costing the US in terms of goodwill. Quite frankly, Bush's handling of the whole situation ie. post 9/11 and Iraq, has been rather myopic and ordinary from a man who is expected to be all seeing and extra-ordinary. It is easy, and expected for Americans to think that anyone who criticises Bush is snubbing America. Those of us who know better, should not allow this to deter us from speaking our minds and saying what needs to be said without allowing ourselves to get emotional too. Aenimal, I understand how you feel as a Canadian (quite similarly to the Americans I suppose, with the whole SARS thing right now) but don't hold anything against our American friends (and they ARE our friends) I think history will show them what you and so many others are seeing now. Garfield [This message has been edited by morefiah (04-28-2003 12:28 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
It is amazing how many people allow their emotionally-based biases to rule their minds when dealing with issues such as this one. (slowly, shakes head from side-to-side.) [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-28-2003 12:40 PM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
The sad part of this whole thread is that I allowed myself to get caught up in the emotions of it and that completely sidelined the intitial comments. I prefer to leave emotion out of it and use logic and reason. Many of you have made excellent points and counterpoints and have brought back the depth to the conversation. My anger has never been with you but with those more intent on labeling then in thinking. I said I wouldn't take part in this thread but allow me these last points: Brad: I'm in no way sorry for what I've said, I think I stated clearly enough times that this was never anti-american but anti policy. He refuses to see this and while he maintains focused on producing the exact quote he ignored all other points and counterpoints completely. I recall an excellent poem you wrote early on in the confilct and the backlash you got for it. Ringo I realize that policing was not originally called for while the protection of the oil wells was. But if you're going to sell this war as "for the people of Iraq" shouldn't there have been some effort to help police and protect the newly freed populace? As for not allowing Blix and UN inspectors in, you have to understand the perceptions some may have about this "There's a joke going around the UK at the moment that the reason it’s taking so long to find the WMD’s is one of logistics, after all it takes time to ship them in and the “Made in Iraq” stickers haven’t even been printed yet" taken from Crazy Eddie post and like Eddie I'm not suggesting this is my opinion, far from it. However it shows that there is a perception amongst some people and countries that this could be the case. Therefore I think it's vital that the US includes Blix and co. to join in and prove to the world beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is indeed evidence. It's simply a matter of removing doubts and soothing fears. JP There is a difference between helping you defend yourselves and joining you in an attack on someone else. The US wasn't directly threatened by Iraq, had it been rest assured we would have joined without hesitation. On the other hand, were you attacked as you were on 9/11 we would have joined immediately as we did in Afghanistan. We along with the UN understood and had clearer reasons in attacking the Taliban regime. With regards to Saddam's regime while we did not approve of his methods we awaited the UN's approval and more proof before moving. It's as simple as that. If canadians weren't supportive of the US why let some of our soldiers over or why patrol the persian gulf? I have by the way never completely defended the Canadian government's decision to not offer assitance of some sort, I think it was a mistake although to tell you the truth we simply wouldn't have had the resources with most of our troops still based in Afghanistan. My point was never to make this an issue of Canada's view vs the US it was about Bush's attitude and policy's. And as for showing umberage, there is a HUGE difference between a neighbourhood setting and a Global scale. We're talking about shaky relationships albeit temporary between two G7 nations. And by the way I've also stated that Chretien is equally childish he has also responded in less then savoury ways and I do not advocate them. Thus the statement I made earlier And that's not a shot at the US but the entire international community including Canada. Bunch of children in the sandbox, well to hell with all of them. Morefiah I hold absolutely nothing against americans as I've stated before. Why would I come to a primarily American forum amidst primarily American friends and insult them? All i ever meant was that there seems to be little respect or etiquette in Bush's administration which I find disturbing attributes for the leader of the free world. I'm not sure what you mean by the SARS reference but maybe that's better left for another discussion this one has me worn out. Again I have apologized for getting emotional but understand my frustration in being labeled as I was. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (04-28-2003 01:16 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Recently Bush cancelled a scheduled trip to Canada when Colin Powell was asked by a canadian reporter if this was a snub due to Canada's stance on the Iraq war. Powell admitted that it was indeed but added that we shouldn't worry as neighbours it will eventually blow over." ~ Without the time to research this claim, I'll just give you the bennefit of the doubt and regard it as factual. "Is international relations the place for petty emotions and were Canadians not entitled to their own opinion?" ~ Define "petty emotions?" ~ Of course the Canadian government has a right to its own opinion, however if that opinion differs with its closest neighbors - who happens to be Canada's strongest ally, then they could expect a "snubbing" in return. "The Bush administrations foreign policy is absolutely appaling," ~ I disagree. It is not appalling. It is strong and decisive. "this war was fought for the Iraqi freedom but once the looting began soldiers did not assist, when asked they said it was not their mission to police. I found that amusing when you consider there were alot of military units keeping a sharp eye on oil wells." ~ This is not the same issue as foreign policy. Besides that, this is two issues that have nothing to do with each other. The protecting of the oil wells was to prevent the enemy from setting them on fire. The looting problem was an entirely different matter, and was unexepected. After reading various articles about the looting, I came to this conclusion - 1. It was unexpected. 2. A decision had to made and made quickly. 3. The Americans did not want to appear to be taking over the country, so they allowed the looting to occur. Whether that decision was correct is another issue which could be discussed at another time. "And while the US continually stated that they did not wish to undermine the UN I find it appaling that now that the war is over the US has denied UN inspectors access to search for those Chemical weapons and others of mass destruction, saying that their own inspectors were on the case and the UN would simply get in the way. Is this good policy," ~ Yes, it is. If the U.N. would of enforced its own resolutions and supported the war effort, then Mr. Blix would have every right to gather his team and do the job in searching for those weapons, but since the U.N. balked...they are out, and justifiably so. "is this the way to endear yourself to the international community?" ~ The U.S. does not set "endearing" as a number one priority when dealing with the international community. The Bush administration determined that Saddam was not in compliance...Saddam hadn't been in compliance for over a decade, so they decided it was time ato "show some muscle" by bullying the bully. Now the bully is gone. Of course, all Saddam had to do was comply. He made his own bed, now he has been blown-up in it. [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-28-2003 01:52 PM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Did or did not the Secretary of State tell the Canadian press that the president of the United States snubbed Canada? That is not a difficult question. Everything I read is to the exact contrary. Where is the evidence Canada has been snubbed as indicated. Please, someone show me. The position of virtually every American I know is that Canada is a valued ally and respected for their bravery and heroism in past conflicts. Everyone (American), including myself, who expressed an opinion in the thread agreed with this assessment. Brad, it is hard to gauge your positions because you change topic quite effectively or go Socratic. But in threads I have observed, you were against Afghanistan but approve of the results. Interesting take, sort of the yes but reasoning. On Iraq, you take the approach, it is a judgment call, but the U.S. is going about it the wrong way. I have not seen you directly and succinctly set out your position on many issues. Such an approach allows one to avoid being tied down to any one position except for the fact you are consistent, in at least the threads I have read, of not agreeing to any action or policy of the U.S. government, only the results. I temper that with not reading all your threads. George Carlin could and does effectively employ language for satirical purposes. You also effectively use language. My response after your last comment was quite honestly was huh? Where did that one come from? You feel free to read into other's comment perceived motivations and "agendas" and criticize others for doing the same. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Aenimal.... I hope you did not get me wrong. I also have Canadian relatives who have told me that the WHO response to the whole SARS thing rubs you guys the wrong way EVEN as you are working so hard to get on top of things. Sounds like a national crisis to me. So that was why I said that there may be some similarities in terms of the national psyche just now. As for my comments about holding things against them... I think I may be one of the few here who realize how hard you have tried to maintain that you are NOT carrying grudges. You are right about your efforts to show that foreign policies are what you ariginally tried to speak to. It's just that there have been a few knee-jerk responses to what you said. I found it all interesting though, so I guess I can say it here and now: I love coming here to enjoy the cut-and-thrust of good debating every day. Best thing is: It is normally from a basis of heart-felt opinions. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Aenimal said: quote: I wrote no such poem. I don't know how to write such a poem. Like 911, I see no way to improve on the impact of war. I may someday write a poem on 911 or on the war, but I haven't yet, and it won't be a political poem, it will focus on the fact that I was crying and my daughter was smiling at the pretty pictures. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, nobody's perfect. If I change the subject, it's just because I see multiple subjects. But that was exactly my position on Afghanistan. I can't get the words of this administration to fit the actions (No stated goal was met), but I'm pleased with the results. I'm at the same time distressed with what's happening now. How much money did this administration allocate to Afghanistan in the current budget?quote: Yep. Hey, somebody does read around here. quote: Now why do you say that? You've gotten me right twice. quote: Only if by tied down you mean I have to tie myself to one slogan or another. I see no reason to do that. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't have to write anything. I could just cut and paste. quote: Why do you think that I'm above the fray? I certainly don't. I criticize all of us for finding 'agendas' in our opponents and forgiving the 'mistakes' of our friends. When I wrote that, I was actually thinking of Jeng Zha Min's comments regarding the, uh, downing of an American plane incident a few years back. His point was that America was too powerful to make mistakes. As ludicrous as that sounds, it seems that's the approach we all take to an opponent. To be honest, I read some of your stuff, compare it to others I've read and wonder if there's some class out there, call it Neocon 101, that teaches this type or rhetorical manuevering? I'm not being critical here, simply explaining my own bias. I simply don't buy that you, Michael, or Opeth are any less biased than I am and so I'm going to continue to point that out as tedious as that may be sometimes. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
