I see UN was "good" when it was helping Israel...And then it was "bad" because it criticised Israel...
I find it interesting that someone who seems very adamant about the 'rightness' of the UN and the 'wrongness' of Israel knows so little about both. So how about a history lesson? You can confirm all I say below with a little research. Get your parents to help you if you must.
The United Nations began with the London Declaration in 1941. The declaration was signed by Britain, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and the exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia. Charles de Gaulle also signed. The US signed after we went to war with Germany and Japan, and the Soviet Union later signed as well.
In 1944 Roosevelt began campaigning for the UN to become a strong international body and to have actual power. In September 1944 representatives of the Soviet Union, Britain, the US, and China, setup the basic parameters of the UN. This was cemented at the Yalta conference where it was decided that the controlling members of the UN would be US, the Soviet Union, Britain, China, and France.
The UN charter was created by 50 member nations (too numerous to list, I suggest you use the Internet). The Palestinians and Jews had been fighting from 1920 to 1947 over territorial control. In 1948 the British asked the UN to intervene; a special UN committee decided that a separate Jewish state should be created.
On May 14, 1948, Israel became an independent state. Immediately Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt launched attacks on what they refused to recognize as Israel. You might be interested to know that your precious Soviet Union actually supplied the arms to Israel to fight this war - precisely because they expected to be able to expand their influence to Israel!
Since its creation the UN has ballooned into 190 countries, many of which have substantial Arab influence (including the original states listed above). 54 of the countries are Arab or Muslim, and vote unilaterally. The Third World bloc tends to vote against Israel because they see it as a "colonial state". You state that the UN is against Israel because "Israel fucked up", but this simply is not the case. Arab nations were against its creation and have wanted to annhialiate it since its inception. They have simply gained backing. Nearly two-thirds of all General Assembly and Security Council resolutions passed since the founding of the UN in 1945 have been anti-Israel. Additionally, Israel is the only UN member that is never allowed to hold a seat on the Security Council.
This is the most audacious high-flying mis-representing bullshit ever conceived. One had to do with nearly every Palestinian child living in poverty under occupation and the other with an attempt to portray Israel as a victim
And that certainly sounds like a level-headed, objective evaluation of the proposal.
No. They pulled it when it became obvious that it would pass when only the part about "protecting children from violence" was left and not the "we Israeli are poor innocent victims of Evil Palestinians" one tied skillfully to the other. It is a classic stunt of pro-Israel dis-information and deceit, you surely were not expecting me to take your bullshit at face value, were you?
Well, then, why don't we look at the original resolution. This is an almost exact copy of the earlier approved resolution to protect Palestinian children. The Israeli resolution was killed by the Non-Aligned Movement. To summarize the changes:
The list of amendments, cosponsored by Bahrain, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, included deleting of the phrase "Israeli children" from the text and replacing it with "Middle East children," and inserting references to Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and ""excessive use of f
Oh drats! You found us out! Me and ol' George's academic staff are in on it together! Shhhh! Tell noone!
It's rather transparent for, when you have no reply - when you've essentially been pointed out for your millionth misleading statement - you to attempt to divert discussion with sarcasm and mockery.
My statement was not that you had entered into a conspiracy with GW. It was that - as a conspiracy theorist and anti-US nutjob - you selectively edited a statement, ignoring all other sources, to fit your presupposed conclusion. Again, you can offer no rebuttal to this other than mockery.
I also neglected to consider the position of Uranus and all its sattelites at the time, the edicts of King Richard the 1st and the fashion sense of Katarina The Great.
Unfortunately the tactic doesn't become any more convincing the more you use it.
The specific question we were discussing was Cuban Missile Crisis
Actually, no. The specific "question", as you put it, is "was the Soviet Union a real threat, or is it an imaginery boogeyman created by the evil United States?". We got onto the Cuban Missile Crisis as one of many points I offered which completely refuted your idiotic statement that the USSR wasn't a real threat to the world. Once faced with this proof that the USSR was a real threat, one that definitely had visions of world conquest and dominance, you abandoned your (admittedly hopeless) position and started trying to say that the USSR was only a threat because the US made it one. When I listed numerous acts of aggression by the USSR against other world powers, including war crimes, you then attempted to equivocate those acts by showing how - at some point in the past - the US had done something that you deemed equally offensive. But my point has been fully made: it takes two to tango, and the USSR was most definitely a real threat to the world. One we faced down and defeated.
You see, when the 1918 Bolshevik Revolution against the Tzar and his buddies occured with the subsequent civil war, the USA (and others, including Canada - then still under British command) sent (using an excuse of "rescuing" Czech troops) an expeditionary force to "limit" the Bolsheviks in the East and if possible to put them down.
I also find it interesting how in one paragraph you attempt to ridicule me for going back to WWII and listing acts of aggression by the Soviet Union, then you go back to 1918 to show acts of aggression by British, Canadian, and US forces against the Soviet Union.
But as long as you're dragging up history: you are aware that the Bolshevik Revolution occurred after the February Revolution of 1917, in which starving citizens who rioted due to food shortages and lack of employment were forcibly put down by military? The military then revolted - many not wanting to shoot civilians - and the resulting instability led to the Bolshevik Revolution.
We are talking about the brutal oppression of people, a number of them into starvation. This was the result of Communist forces attempting to expand control. Of course the Allies (not just the Americans and a few Canadians, as you put it, but by your own source the British, French, Italian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese, and American s) fought with the Whites against the Bolsheviks.
But, to use your own "logic" - we're not talking about the Bolsheviks.
Your credentials in this regard as compared to the GWU researchers are nil.
Actually you know nothing of my credentials. But, in any case, the research is not my own. I suggest you do a search on the Internet.
The parts dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis being percipitated by the Berlin Wall for example.
Then this is our problem - you're simply too ignorant to be able to comprehend written text. I did not say that the Berlin Wall precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. I said that the Berlin Wall was an example of the USSR's desire to delineate and extend their own control, a strong ind
You are nuts. I say "no" and in the next of your replies I get "so you said yes!".
No, you say "I was wrong, but..." and expect the "but" to matter. You were wrong. Just admit it.
From George Washington University [gwu.edu] Cuban Missile Crisis site:
How typical of a conspiracy theorist to find one source that he can distort to back up his ridiculous position, and ignore all other evidence.
Even looking at the source you provide, two facts become very clear:
- You discontinue your shallow analysis at the point at which the US installed missiles in Turkey. Thus, obviously in your analysis this is the cause - you refuse to consider any other factors (the conduct of the Soviet Union following WWII, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the massacare of millions of innocent Germans, Kruschev's posturing, etc). If you start your account of history with an action by one party, by your account everything is a result of that action. But this is only because you are distorting the truth.
- The source you cite doesn't actually back your position. Note the following excerpts:
Guidelines for OPERATION MONGOOSE and Although Kennedy never formally authorized an invasion
So you are stating that an action that was never taken was the provocation? Even more hilarious is that this source states:
Cuban intelligence had infiltrated the CIA's exile groups
So, obviously, there was a real threat about which to be concerned. But since you're pro-USSR (only because you're anti-USA), this is all okay to you.
You will forgive me if I take their analysis over your incomprehensible, unsubstantiated, delusional fabrications
I'm interested to know - which parts do you think were fabrications? That the USSR slaughtered millions of innocent Germans after WWII in an act of "retributive justice" (this is thoroughly documented - I suggest you look up the words "Berlin Airlift" for starters)? That the USSR erected the Berlin Wall (I suggest you pay a visit to reality for that one)? That Kruschev did not wish to expand control of the USSR?
First they create the state of Israel, the anti-semitic bunch, and then in a fit of anti-semitism, they give it to the Jews! And all that so they can pass resolutions against Israel when it goes berserk later!
Actually Israel was created under pressure by the major controlling nations who were the fledgling nation's allies. Since then the UN has become decidedly anti-semitic and specifically anti-Israel. Perhaps you haven't heard of Israel's "Test Resolution"? The Israelis proposed a resolution to protect Israeli children from terrorism. The UN had just approved a similar proposal from Egypt to protect Palestinian children. Yet Egypt then led opposition to the Israeli resolution. The entire Non-Aligned Movement (led by Egypt) did their best to sabotage this document with amendments and changes. Israel pulled it because their point had been made.
And don't you just love when pedantry backfires? Yes, "semite" does mean "member of a group of Semitic-speaking individuals." But the term "anti-semitic" is defined as "discrimination against or hostility towards Jews". You might also be interested to know that while the word "kill" means to take the life of, "kilometer" does not mean to take the life of a meter.
Pol Pot came to power because you bombed Cambodia and destablized it!
Yes, this is true. And I have never stated otherwise. Nixon - who few Americans will try to say was a good president - unwisely decided to bomb Cambodia due to a perceived Communist threat. This created the situation for Pol Pot to rise to power (much like all of our nations created Hitler and the Nazis by our ridiculous demands after WWI).
My point in bringing up Vietnam is that after the war was over, there was no international effort to stop the genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge. The world sat back and watched. Just as you wanted to
My original position: USSR = strawman. The refined position: USSR no threat to Canada
So, in your own words: you recant your original position, that the USSR was not a threat and thus was a strawman. That's all that matters.
As for the rest of it: you have a very ill-informed world view and imagine that the US was the sole provacateur during the Cold War. This is a position so oblivious to fact that it stymies me. It would take pages to educate you as to the actual events of the cold war, but your inaccuracies about the Cuban Missile Crisis at least need to fully pointed out.
You claim that the USSR was forced to place missiles in Cuba because of US missiles in Turkey. This is, simply, ludicrous. The USSR was actually more pissed off about our presence in Berlin than anything else - Kruschev actually called Berlin the "bone in his throat". The USSR wanted to take over all of Germany (and this is a long history going back to the systematic massacre of innocent Germans by the Russians - numbering into the millions - after WWII). The Russians built the Berlin wall after the Vienna summit of 1961, a pure act of aggression.
Kruschev, much like Kennedy, wanted his country to come out on top in the cold war. Kennedy was an inexperienced president, and Kruschev felt that he could push him around. So after dominating Kennedy at the Vienna summit, and building the Berlin wall, he felt that it was time to take decisive action and place nuclear missiles within strike range of the US. This was all aggression - not response.
In fact, the missiles in Turkey which you keep blathering about were obsolete technology!
This is just one example of the shallowness of your world view. That you could look at this one incident and come to the conclusion that this was all due to US aggression - completely ignoring the role the USSR played - shows your ignorance and bias.
Nothing of the sort. I base my assertion on this simple fact: since the creation of Israel the UN General Assembly passed 429 anti-Israel resolutions, in which Israel was "condemned" 321 times. From 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel. During that span, Israel was "condemned" 49 times (source wikipedia). If that is not an expression of regret, I am not sure what is
It's actually an expression of anti-Semitism, largely because so many of the UN member countries have large Islamic communities. Israel cannot be erased, it was created and has a right to exist - no matter how much you anti-Semites want to destroy it or enact your "final solution".
Your nation has killed far more people due to its actions then its inactions ever could. And I am talking the brazenly unjustifiable ones like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia or Iraq!
Once again proving my point regarding your ignorance. You don't even know how many people were killed in Vietnam after we finally withdrew (estimates are 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 killed by Pol Pot's regime after we withdrew; war deaths were lower than that). How many people were killed in the Sudan? (estimates are around 40,000 people killed and >1,000,000 displaced)? In Bosnia? On and on?
You earlier made the statement that Hitler was an exception to your "let them kill themselves" rule because he actually tried to expand. So, by your reasoning, if Hitler had just stayed in Germany and killed all the Jews there, you'd be fine with that, too.
You are a psychotic racist.
In closing, I really just have to let you speak for yourself:
You are the leading bullshiter of free world, hands down, no contest there Again, self-righteous, pompous, self-aggrandizing, megalomaniac bullshit. you are just a wart on the ass of the planet
You seriously claim this isn't overtly demented anti-US hate speech? This is why people who are deemed psychotic are not allowed to defend themselves in court - all they have to do is open their mouth and we see how crazy they are.
When you say things that only an idiot would believe to be true, then the only alternative to calling you a liar is to call you an idiot.
The problem is, the idiot is making the above claims. The control group is compromised.
I actually WAS being civil
One need only look at your own words to see this is not true - I quote:
Pardon me if I don't believe your lies. It's just as full of shit as you are
Perhaps you simply consider this kind of behavior "civil". Most do not.
I, however, have been extremely civil. I simply posited an assertion - that Canadians insult us because they have a national inferiority complex. When you attacked this statement I patiently distinguished insult from criticism, and offered concrete proof for my theory (their own PM admitting as much).
You, on the other hand, have simply resorted to name-calling and other childish methods in an attempt to bully me into silence.
I am standing up for the people you are slandering and you call it childish
I particularly enjoy how anyone who gets his blood in a boil will quickly say that they are "standing up" for someone. You're not standing up for anyone, you're just posting to a bulletin board, and engaging in a rather petty argument with someone you don't even know. This is actually the biggest problem with the US-haters and people like yourself: you think just loudly disagreeing with action, rather than offering alternatives or concrete suggestions, places you on a moral high ground.
And, for your edification: "slander" refers to oral communication. This might be considered libel, were I actually making a statement about a particular person.
I can't condone your tactic of spreading bullshit about your oppononents' motivations
I'm not spreading bullshit. I'm simply making a valid, backed statement about the motivations of people who incessantly mock us. Mocking is not criticism, it is not constructive, and it certainly does not derive from moral or intellectual superiority.
"Okay, gentlemen. We've been hired to plan a media blitz for a new company."
"What do they do?"
"Well, they research and market haptic peripherals."
"Huh?"
"Basically the stuff that reads your fingerprints. They want something fresh, exciting - something to pull the youth market."
"Okay... how about an MTV-style commercial with kids dancing to 'Can't Touch This'?"
[SILENCE]
"Maybe what they really need is a catchy slogan."
"How about 'InGen Haptic Peripherals: OUR devices can recognize a severed finger. Can THEIRS?'".
"This is going to be a long day."
Unfortunately, there was a time when differences in race *did* clash with the definition of marriage *at the time*
Actually, no there wasn't. You are again asserting a false point.
Difference of race never clashed with the definition of marriage. It clashed with the practice of marriage, and this was found to be illegal and forcibly discontinued as a practice. This is because race is not inherently defined or constricted within the marriage contract - and never has been in the United States or Canada. Gender is. Just as number of partners is. Just as the age of partners is. By your reasoning, disallowing polygamy is just like racism. Disallowing marriage between non-consenting or non-legal-age partners is just like racism.
which is why I used the analogy
No, you used the analogy in the hope to blind us to your lack of basis with an emotional argument. A common strategy when you are arguing a flawed position.
This will, I suspect, one day be the case for the issue of sexual orientation, as well
Only if we allow debate of the issue to be founded upon such ignorant assertions as yours, which I will fight to my last breath.
You had a good point here until you mentioned "We have the good grace not to mock you". I've spent the last 30 minutes now reading through anonymous coward garbage about how all the great things the US has done for the world, sprinkled liberally with thinly veiled insults to Canadians
Hardly.
And what I was, specifically, pointing up is the way your national media routinely mocks and ridicules Americans. You have shows which dedicate entire segments to mocking us ("This Hour Has 22 Minutes", anything else Rick Mercer does). Commercials become popular in Canada if they show Americans as stupid, or in some way humiliate us (the beaver attacking the American in the bar, the hockey puck breaking the American's face mask on the moon, on and on). MPs become popular if they insult Americans (Carolyn Parrish). Your news programs daily focus on anything that can embarass the US (how they thought we were being selfish for "only" giving $350 million to tsunami aid, etc). At the end of the year your news programs make a special summation of stupid lines people have said - sound bites - throughout the year. Oddly they only focus on American sound bites. The list continues.
You cannot possibly compare this with people making asses of themselves on the Internet - people do that regardless of where they're from and what they believe. But your cultural bias and contempt is visible in your daily entertainment, news, and all other forms of media.
After the dispute over the Iraq war there was a slight increase in anti-Canadian vitriol, but your anti-American rhetoric goes back years. And, as an American, living in America I never hear anyone talk about Canada. Occasionally some loudmouth gets on the television (usually Fox news) saying we should invade Canada or whatever, but generally we don't mention you. No need to.
but you still feel the need to twist words instead of realising that people are simply trying to use non-flamebait terms to try to provoke a rational discussion
No, I simply recognize equivocation when I see it. It's a lot like someone saying "I hate negroes... except for you, Bob. You're one of the good ones."
I've never claimed our health care was the best in the world but I wouldn't call it broken
Funny. Your government, your media, and the majority of your health care professionals certainly seem to think it is. It takes 50% of all your taxation (in Ontario that's between 40-50% of your income plus 15% combined sales tax). Yet it is remarkably inefficient and losing money.
Certainly it's better than the "oh, your poor? You'll have to go die in the gutter then.." system you guys have going on.
Precisely what I'm talking about - you're simply ignorant of our system. Your ignorance is deemed excusable because it allows you to say something against the US, but if I were equally ignorant of your system I would be mocked.
Yes, ours is a "pay as you go" approach. But most employers now have their employees on some type of copay play which has our individual costs much lower than yours for health care. If you don't have a job and are penniless you aren't turned away - if you have a non-life-threatening condition there are free clinics, and if your condition is more serious you will be treated and billed but you can claim bankruptcy or other debt protection.
My point was that your system is not the perfect solution that you love to claim, nor is your backyard free from mess. Perhaps rather than focus your energy so much on mocking and ridiculing us you should fix your own problems. One problem both of us share is the ridiculous cost of health care supplies. Perhaps if we both focused on this issue we could fix a common problem.
Canadians prefer to spend tax dollars on things with more tangable value like education, healthcare
Probably because you have the luxury of relying upon our military to defend you. It would be amazing if you built your military to the
"Other than a completely different distinguishing characteristic, what's the difference?"
Many of you are clearly deluded into believing that the argument is the same when you substitute the words "black people", "interracial couples", or other irrelevant subjects into arguments against same-sex religion. It is a transparent attempt to add weight to your position by shoehorning in completely irrelevant emotional subjects.
In order for there to be an analogy there has to be recognized common ground between the two subjects you are attempting to analogize. Marriage is accepted as a contract between one man and one woman (in our society). Differences of race do not clash with this definition. Differences of gender obviously do.
Your argument is just as flawed as saying "Why can't a man be on a woman's basketball team? Black women can!"
The only important point here is that the Soviet Union was defending itself from the aggression by the USA
Interesting how your position has changed. First the Soviet Union was a strawman - not a real threat. Then when examples were given of what type of threat the Soviet Union was, you stated they were a real threat, but only because they were responding to US aggression. This is known to be false by anyone who has read their history. In fact you can't even pretend to believe it for long - I quote:
USSR had its own ulterior motives and was supremely brutal
So to summarize your position: the USSR was a nonexistent threat that was supremely brutal. The USSR was a non-brutal brutal strawman which didn't act aggressively, but if they did it was just because the US provoked them into it. Your anti-American bias is, frankly, psychotic.
Oh, and just to remind you, the topic is "defending" Canada.
A topic which, like all the others we have covered, you appear supremely unqualified to debate. You don't seem to realize that "defending" free countries doesn't just mean getting out your gun when Ivan comes knocking on your door. Imagine what would have happened if the US had not grown its military, but the USSR had. The world would be a much different place; however it is safe to assume that people like yourself would be decrying the brutality and horror of Russia and talking about what a saint the US was.
I never claimed that USA is the sole motivating force of terrorism
Really? Let me quote you:
the Islamic militants do not have any beef with us since we do not try to occupy their lands or prop-up their opressors
Your position: Islamists bomb the US, its allies, and random innocent people because we have bases on "their land" (including land granted the Jews by the UN, which you still believe belongs to the Islamists) and we "prop up" their oppressors. Both of these positions have been proven false; the militants themselves have said democracy is their enemy, and you have even offered other causes for their antagonism. Now you want to pretend you never said it. If I said something that stupid, so would I.
A grave mistake which the UN regretted ever since.
Again, let us summarize. You know more than the UN. You know more than the US. If only we were all as enlightened as you. You're nothing more than a thinly-veiled, anti-American, anti-Semitic racist. You seem to believe that the world can just sort itself out, and we should never get involved. Some more of your choice quotes:
the problems of Spain and France are internal problems of Spain and France The problem was and will remain for Koreans to sort out. Just like Vietnam was for the Vietnamese
I'm sure you feel that the Sudanese are doing just fine, along with the Mogadishans, Bosnia, and of course the "supremacist" Jews you hate so much. C'mon, show your true colors: you really believe nobody should have stopped Hitler, don't you?
The defense of free society is a responsibility that has largely fallen to us, because we are the leader of the free world. We protect you every day, as we have done for years. Not because we particularly like you - but because, by your good luck, you are like a tick on the neck of a big dog. You are one of the many countries that take from us with one hand and flip us off with the other.
People like you speak in grandiose terms, but I see you for what you are. You're just a coward. If the death is happening across the globe, it doesn't bother you - as long as you're not involved. You would rather 1000 people die due to your inaction than 1 die due to your action.
And if you mattered, we might care. At the end of the day you're still the mouse, and we're still the elephant.
Strange how childish this sounds. "I could do it if I wanted to!"
I could refraing from name-calling
Could you? You haven't. You've been throwing around terms like "liar" for quite a while.
But that would be lying on my part
It would be lying to discuss something in a civil manner? You've really got your panties in a bunch.
I honestly point this out.
Suuure you do. Hate to break the news, but just calling someone a liar, using ad hominem attacks, and just being childish is neither honest or laudable. Beauty, eh?
And isn't it grand that now you won't have to convince me? You can just force me to think like you! God bless democracy.
but, might I suggest you review you arguments, and replace "homosexual couples" with "mixed-race couples", and tell me again how this isn't discrimination
I suggest you review your arguments and replace "homosexual couples" with "oversized beach towel", or "Wankel rotary engine", and see if it still makes sense.
One cannot replace the subject about which one is arguing with a non-anologous subject and then use the same arguments. Homosexual couples aren't the same as interracial couples. Not allowing an interracial couple to marry is unreasonable discrimination, and does violate a person's rights. Not allowing homosexuals to marry does nothing of the sort. The fact that your kind have to lie to convince people (and then force them to do what you want when the lies don't work) just reveals the weakness of your position.
I will address this one particular issue. Much like women's sufferage, and much like slavery, the fact is, the right (and only legal) thing to do is currently not the popular thing
You certainly set yourself up well: first linking yourself without evidence of connection to such hot topics as "women's sufferage" and "slavery", then by pronouncing that your position is the "right" and "legal" way. Your openness to debate on the issue is heartwarming.
Fortunately, unlike certain other democracies in the world, our government and judicial system realize that popular opinion can *never* be allowed to trump the rights afforded to citizens under our human rights act.
Precisely my point: marriage between any number of people of any gender is not a right. Find that spelled out in any document, I'll concede. This simply is not a rights issue, any more than not allowing humans to wed animals, trees, lampposts, or children.
Marriage is an established institution. Those who follow the guidelines, obtain the paperwork, and pay the fees have the right to call themselves married. Many societies see the institution as one between a single man and a single woman, both of legal age. Some allow multiple partners (we do not, yet nobody is crying over that). Some allow same-sex partners. There is no objective issue of "right" or "wrong". There is the definition of the concept, the currently accepted societal norm, those who want to change it, and those who wish it to remain the same. The problem with your type is you want to silence anyone who disagrees with you and force your opinion on us. That's not democracy.
And that, much to the chagrin of many a bigotted Canadian, includes discrimination based on sexuality.
Again, the issue is not one of discrimination. It is of a group of people wishing to change an accepted practice for their benefit (and, in many peoples' view, to the harm of everyone else).
Unfortunately the very beliefs that ended slavery were forgotten by subsequent generations in the US.
Keep playing that violin. Gay people are not slaves. They are not oppressed. They just want something that they don't have. Life is hard.
The fact is, our government is doing the *ethical* thing here
Whew, thank goodness! As long as the government will only speak for me when they're right, we're safe!
So, citing it as an example is, really, just a demonstration of your clear lack of understanding regarding how a civilized country should operate, and also demonstrates how you've forsaken the lessons taught by your own forebearers.
What it illustrates very clearly is how poorly you understand the democratic form of government. I'd be curious to see how you would react should your PM decide to enforce the banning of abortions. There are many who feel this is the "right" thing to do, and use the exact same melodramatic hyperbole as you to justify their position. I doubt you'd be crowing then.
In response to the USA putting them in Turkey first. Please get your Cuban Missile Crisis facts straight.
The only important point here is that the Soviet Union was capable of deploying missiles in Cuba. This handily defeats your "strawman" position. The Cold War was very real, and causation for it is much deeper than the US putting missiles in Turkey.
In a fit of stupidity USSR responded to a request of a then Afghan government of Nur Mohammad Taraki for help to defeat a coup by an Islamist named Hafizullah Amin sponsored by the USA. And the rest is history.
Just plain wrong. First Daud seized power from King Zahir (without killing him) and made Afghanistan a republic. A constitution was created, and Daud was elected president. He even had a civilian cabinet. But Daud was killed in a coup by the Revolutionary Council in 1978 (led by Noor Muhammed Turaki and Hafizullah Amin). These men suspended Afghanistan's constitution and attempted to institute "scientific socialism". Devout Muslims resisted this; Amin asked the USSR for help, and the US backed the Mujahadeen against the USSR.
To clarify: the US backed the will of the people against the rule of a tyrannical leader and the power of the Soviet Union (your strawman).
Quite different from supporting terrorists blowing up civilians.
While that was indeed happening
Thank you. You just admitted your statement was entirely false.
Stalin and particularly the later governments had no intention of expanding to Canada, and as the declassifed Kremlin archives show, were always in a reactionary, defensive stance to what they preceived as their mortal threat: NATO. Note that Warsaw Pact was formed in response to NATO, not the other way around.
Despite this being moot, since you've admitted your position was wrong, all of this is the direct result of our power standing up against them.
... in their own lands.
Not what they said at all. I suggest you read more.
All of whom have large impoverished Islamic populations and subsequent internal problems.
... Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. You concede that there are other motivating forces behind the terrorism than the evil old US, and that there is a real enemy to fight.
Also Spain was singled out for helping out the USA in its Iraq crusade, all attacks ceased since they withdrew.
Obviously you are unaware of past actions by the Basque separatist group, the ETA, et al. And are you advocate giving in to terrorist demands?
... snip anti-Israel ranting...
Also you neglected to mention which border does Canada share with Israel.
You must mean the seven-days war, when Israel tried to expand - oh, no, sorry, they defended themselves from annhialation by Arabs.
You must mean the daily suicide bombings the Israelis commit against the "Palestinians"... oh, no wait, that's backwards.
By the way, Israel not being a neighbor of Canada is irrelevant. The UN, of which you are a (very minor) member, created Israel. And the point was that not just our "bases overseas" cause Islamic violence. Again you very readily admit there are other motivating factors than the US, or the US military bases.
No because, South and North Korea are the same country and the South wishes to overtake and rule the North, while the North wishes to rule the South.
Sorry, I presumed basic reading comprehension abilities. My meaning was: why do you think this is a concern for Korea, and not a done deal? Because we prevented North Korea - a true hell hole that you don't seem to worry about - from taking over South Korea.
Because there is nothing to indicate that China is on a mission to take over the planet
Of course not. NOT NOW. Why don't you examine some of the 20th-century rhetoric coming from that countr
What you have is "If I don't agree that your criticism is valid, then it must be the case that you have an inferiority complex." That attitude is unacceptable, and just as bad as what the Candian to which you are replying did.
Actually, no.
What you have is: "If your 'criticism' is actually thinly-veiled mockery, based upon ignorant assertions, progapanda-based mis-characterization, and mean-spiritedness; and it is only meant to be demeaning, then it probably comes from an inferiority complex".
Canadians do, in general, feel inferior to us as a country (in strength, world presence, and global positioning). They state this all the time - Trudeau called Canada the "mouse in bed with the elephant". As in most cases, they find the best outlet for this sense of inadequacy is to mock us. Pardon me if I don't feel like bending over and taking it.
Now that the USSR was revealed to be a stawman all that time
You must mean the strawman that was building missile bases in Cuba? The strawman that invaded Afghanistan? The strawman that has oppressed most of the small countries that comprised the Soviet Union (talk to a Ukrainian about what a strawman the USSR was).
What happened was we outspent the USSR on protection, which caused it to collapse. Another instance of our actions bringing about peace, and another instance of our actions not being recognized.
the Islamic militants do not have any beef with us since we do not try to occupy their lands
Really? Funny how they say something completely different. Something about democracy being a great evil.
Also, might interest you to know that the Islamists are terrorizing Spain (which is not a gigantic power like the US), France (ditto), and many other small countries.
They also have a tiny beef with the existence of a place called Israel. You know, the place we all created for the Jews to live?
Your attitude - we haven't been attacked yet, so we don't care - is markedly self-centered and naive.
North Korea is only concerned with South Korea and you. China wants regional influence and to become a commercial power, their problems are with Taiwan.
Why do you think North Korea is only concerned with South Korea (as you put it)? Maybe because of UN (mostly US) action to prevent the invasion of South Korea? Why do you think China isn't expanding? Maybe because of our military and economic might?
I love this new-age short-sightedness about how the world is so peaceful and we don't need military power. It's largely the US and military power that has made the world peaceful.
There may be death as an indirect result UN Embargoes, but unlike US military action, there wasn't an intent to do so
So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.
And you undermine your whole position: if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.
The initial reason for war in Iraq was for terrorists and WMDs.
Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher (and don't forget this also convinced Tony Blair, but you don't have an ingrained cultural bias against the British).
Oh, don't forget that the Mujahideen were also freedom fighters that you abandoned in Afganistan
Yep. We armed them against invasion by Soviet forces - something Canada had a vested interest in.
Funny how they are known as terrorists now
Not really funny, considering they "now" run terrorist training camps where they plot to blow up innocent civilians (not to fight against the military force as they were trained).
Oh, and I like how you completely dropped the issue of the first Gulf War. Probably because you realize the contradiction: after the first Gulf War, the world was mad that we didn't back the freedom fighers in Iraq. Now they're mad that we fought to liberate Iraq. The double standard to which only the US is held.
Cyprus, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, just to name a few
Umm... you can't be serious. Oh, wait:
granted we didn't stop an entire war
You're not.
but stopping battles where we can does help
Sure. That's why Bosnia is now a Utopian society? Or Mogadishu? Or Haiti?
Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.
You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?
Oh yes, all hail the mighty Americans who came in half way through the war. Any country can be the deciding factor when they join the war when it's almost done.
Almost done, "eh"? Pray tell how you would have pushed the Germans back to Germany (remember Market Garden? Occupied France and Holland?). The war was not "almost done", it was at a standstill. And you seem to forget the entire Pacific Theater, which we ended with the atom bomb. Your ignorance staggers me.
No, according to you, your solution would be to drop bombs on them and kill them all. Great solution there.
This is more insulting than stupid - you do realize how many of our young men have died specifically to avoid civilian deaths in Iraq? How every attempt is made to not just adopt the "kill them all" attitude? This is what terrorists exploit.
Well, I think the world is a better place without wars.
Well fucking hell, let's just get you a gold star. What a childish statement. Wars exist whether or not you are involved with them, vote for them, or promote them. The world is constantly at war, yet people like you seem content to let "those others" kill themselves, and innocent people, as long as your hands aren't dirty. This is the same reasoning that condems the US for trying to protect Vietnam from Communism and genocide, but says nothing about the mass murder committed after we withdrew.
You know what really shows me Canada's true colors? Your complete inaction in the Sudan. The US tried to push through the resolution to have t
I don't like the attitude expressed by some Canadians toward us either, but that's no justification for using this unfair, totally bullshit line of "reasoning". The notion that "if you ridicule, it's because you have an inferority complex" should just fucking die already.
We're not arguing what you think we're arguing. Valid criticism is always acceptable. Open mocking and ridicule is not. I am protesting the latter, not the former.
Canadians who make fun of Americans aren't doing so "for their own good". They're doing it just to have a laugh at a country they resent. And the very notion that a Canadian implicitly knows more about freedom, society, human rights, or any of that nonsense irks me. Canada has its own problems.
I'm not surprised to see Slashdot pushing this because pandering is a virtue curiously prevalent in those who are supposed to be highly-educated.
You haven't made it better for the "opressed". Their lives are crappier now since their country is in full civil war.
At the very best, this is an ignorant statement. Because this would be very difficult to measure. The thing is, people like you don't consider deaths due to the UN embargoes, totalitarian regimes, or anything like that, as being countable. Only deaths as the result of US military action. Kind of shows your whole agenda.
Funny how the mission statement changes when the objectives couldn't be completed.
The mission was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from the start, and from the beginning the rhetoric of "freeing the Iraqi people" was employed. Most Americans were in favor of staying out the course after the UN action during the Clinton administration, and felt very guilty about having abandoned freedom fighters in Iraq to their fate (interesing note: in "Three Kings" this is played up to make us feel bad, now Russell has made a film to make us feel bad for following through!). Maybe you just don't know enough about the subject.
Let's just list out the "nothing" that Canada has done. Anytime we deploy our military (as sad as it is), we put them in world hot spots for PEACE KEEPING. We go to places to STOP wars, not to wage them.
I love this argument. Where, exactly, have you prevented wars? The Sudan? Mogadishu? Bosnia? Your model of doing nothing is certainly no more effective than our model of doing something. And it has been repeatedly shown that peacekeeping forces actually do more harm than good.
Oh, if you want to talk about war, let's talk about WWI, and WWII. Just so you know, Canada was actively participating in the two wars SEVERAL YEARS before the US got involved. So don't ever say we have contributed nothing.
Another humorous point - yes you were there, but don't you find it interesting that our presence turned the tide? We were the deciding factor in that war.
Spend it building homes, giving food, clothing. That is how you make a better world.
Good idea, let's build a home in insurgent controlled territory. See how long that will last. Frickin' hippie.
I love to hear Canadians talk about how you would make the world better. Sorry, I've lived in Canada. I've seen your homeless problems, your broken health care system, your high housing costs. Looks very familiar. Socialism is not the magic answer.
No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it
No, you make fun of us as a means to feel better about yourselves. It's a classic inferiority complex, and very transparent.
That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news.
Actually, no, it's institutionalized propaganda. First, the link you provide is to a story about how a large number of Americans now think "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks". It is not about this unmeasurable "knowledge of the rest of the world" about which you speak. It is one instance of propaganda in our own society. You know, much like the way you are all brainwashed to believe that Maher Arar was abducted by FBI officials, and not handed over to us by the Canadian government - complete with false background information. Much like your PM forcing your government to vote for same-sex marriage, even though a substantial amount of the government and population are against the initiative.
The "ignorant American" flag just doesn't fly. For every ignorant person in our society there is at least one in your society; for every fat person in ours, at least one in yours. We have the good grace to not mock you. What does that say about you?
But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people
Aw, shucks, that's just right nice of you! I'd love to hear your opinion on black people. The "good ones" are ok too, right?
We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election
Odd that someone with as much "worldly knowledge" as you claim to have wouldn't know that Bush won by a slim margin. And, hey, how did Chretien work out for you? Paul Martin fixed your broken health care system and military yet?
We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media
You have seen nothing offensive until you have seen the way Americans are portrayed by your media. So don't even start.
Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive
So you mean, they're politicians? Wow.
But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.
Classic, and would probably seem like a logical conclusion to someone who had never lived in Canada. But perhaps you could regale us all with the tale of how the last mayor of Toronto was elected based upon a trumped-up media story that actually didn't affect the city one iota (the proposed island airport bridge)? How about that sponsorship scandal? That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Clean up your own backyard, 'nuck. Then lecture us "aboot" government and society.
The problem with that statement is that the basic assumption is flawed. Canadians are not our friends. They are smug, pretentious people who love to ridicule us while simultaneously exploiting all the benefits of being our ally.
In other words, there just like every other second-place nation we protect.
I'm sure next on Slashdot we'll be hearing about how Canada (which is, of course, a Utopian society) only uses Linux and Open Source software, is 100% vegan, can freely exchange pirated materials, etc.
The only thing I despise more than a smug, complacent Canadian is the self-hating American who can't wait to slag on their own country.
Mod me a troll, I don't care. I know how it works here. Say Canada is Utopia and the US is hell, it's objective and news-worthy. Say it isn't all it's cracked up to be, and you're trolling.
Penal codes go under the notion that a person's liberty cannot be revoked without due process. Society cannot simply revoke a person's liberties for notions of the "greater good", but rather only the courts through legal processes can do such a thing. Habeas corpus can be suspended during periods of insurrection or invasion, but this clearly is a limited enterprise, and not some sort of blanket excuse to run around limiting rights for the "public good".
Transparently false. What do you call being arrested and detained?
The Founding Fathers were very aware that tyrants would use this sort of justification to curtail freedoms. What a pity that US citizens are so ill-versed in the general history of government abuses, particularly with lovely little captions like "For the Public Good."
I'm sure a teacher would give you a great grade for this sophomoric reply. But it just doesn't measure up in the real world.
Note how you conveniently ignored all given examples of giving up rights for the "greater good", to simply make your granola remark. Or do you actually believe the world would be better if we all had the "right" to rape, murder, and steal?
(For some quaint takes on this Public Good b.s. look up such charming bastions of the peaceful society as Robespierre and Mao).
For some more practical takes, try examining U.S. Penal Code.
Anyone who accepts society implicitly accepts limits upon their rights. If this truly bothers you, go live on a deserted island and pick berries.
If you want to argue specific instances of curtailment of rights that you find objectionable, that's certainly germane and reasonable. But as a general argument your position holds no water.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it interesting that someone who seems very adamant about the 'rightness' of the UN and the 'wrongness' of Israel knows so little about both. So how about a history lesson? You can confirm all I say below with a little research. Get your parents to help you if you must.
The United Nations began with the London Declaration in 1941. The declaration was signed by Britain, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and the exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia. Charles de Gaulle also signed. The US signed after we went to war with Germany and Japan, and the Soviet Union later signed as well.
In 1944 Roosevelt began campaigning for the UN to become a strong international body and to have actual power. In September 1944 representatives of the Soviet Union, Britain, the US, and China, setup the basic parameters of the UN. This was cemented at the Yalta conference where it was decided that the controlling members of the UN would be US, the Soviet Union, Britain, China, and France.
The UN charter was created by 50 member nations (too numerous to list, I suggest you use the Internet). The Palestinians and Jews had been fighting from 1920 to 1947 over territorial control. In 1948 the British asked the UN to intervene; a special UN committee decided that a separate Jewish state should be created.
On May 14, 1948, Israel became an independent state. Immediately Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt launched attacks on what they refused to recognize as Israel. You might be interested to know that your precious Soviet Union actually supplied the arms to Israel to fight this war - precisely because they expected to be able to expand their influence to Israel!
Since its creation the UN has ballooned into 190 countries, many of which have substantial Arab influence (including the original states listed above). 54 of the countries are Arab or Muslim, and vote unilaterally. The Third World bloc tends to vote against Israel because they see it as a "colonial state". You state that the UN is against Israel because "Israel fucked up", but this simply is not the case. Arab nations were against its creation and have wanted to annhialiate it since its inception. They have simply gained backing. Nearly two-thirds of all General Assembly and Security Council resolutions passed since the founding of the UN in 1945 have been anti-Israel. Additionally, Israel is the only UN member that is never allowed to hold a seat on the Security Council.
This is the most audacious high-flying mis-representing bullshit ever conceived. One had to do with nearly every Palestinian child living in poverty under occupation and the other with an attempt to portray Israel as a victim
And that certainly sounds like a level-headed, objective evaluation of the proposal.
No. They pulled it when it became obvious that it would pass when only the part about "protecting children from violence" was left and not the "we Israeli are poor innocent victims of Evil Palestinians" one tied skillfully to the other. It is a classic stunt of pro-Israel dis-information and deceit, you surely were not expecting me to take your bullshit at face value, were you?
Well, then, why don't we look at the original resolution. This is an almost exact copy of the earlier approved resolution to protect Palestinian children. The Israeli resolution was killed by the Non-Aligned Movement. To summarize the changes:
The list of amendments, cosponsored by Bahrain, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, included deleting of the phrase "Israeli children" from the text and replacing it with "Middle East children," and inserting references to Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and ""excessive use of f
It's rather transparent for, when you have no reply - when you've essentially been pointed out for your millionth misleading statement - you to attempt to divert discussion with sarcasm and mockery.
My statement was not that you had entered into a conspiracy with GW. It was that - as a conspiracy theorist and anti-US nutjob - you selectively edited a statement, ignoring all other sources, to fit your presupposed conclusion. Again, you can offer no rebuttal to this other than mockery.
I also neglected to consider the position of Uranus and all its sattelites at the time, the edicts of King Richard the 1st and the fashion sense of Katarina The Great.
Unfortunately the tactic doesn't become any more convincing the more you use it.
The specific question we were discussing was Cuban Missile Crisis
Actually, no. The specific "question", as you put it, is "was the Soviet Union a real threat, or is it an imaginery boogeyman created by the evil United States?". We got onto the Cuban Missile Crisis as one of many points I offered which completely refuted your idiotic statement that the USSR wasn't a real threat to the world. Once faced with this proof that the USSR was a real threat, one that definitely had visions of world conquest and dominance, you abandoned your (admittedly hopeless) position and started trying to say that the USSR was only a threat because the US made it one. When I listed numerous acts of aggression by the USSR against other world powers, including war crimes, you then attempted to equivocate those acts by showing how - at some point in the past - the US had done something that you deemed equally offensive. But my point has been fully made: it takes two to tango, and the USSR was most definitely a real threat to the world. One we faced down and defeated.
You see, when the 1918 Bolshevik Revolution against the Tzar and his buddies occured with the subsequent civil war, the USA (and others, including Canada - then still under British command) sent (using an excuse of "rescuing" Czech troops) an expeditionary force to "limit" the Bolsheviks in the East and if possible to put them down.
I also find it interesting how in one paragraph you attempt to ridicule me for going back to WWII and listing acts of aggression by the Soviet Union, then you go back to 1918 to show acts of aggression by British, Canadian, and US forces against the Soviet Union.
But as long as you're dragging up history: you are aware that the Bolshevik Revolution occurred after the February Revolution of 1917, in which starving citizens who rioted due to food shortages and lack of employment were forcibly put down by military? The military then revolted - many not wanting to shoot civilians - and the resulting instability led to the Bolshevik Revolution.
We are talking about the brutal oppression of people, a number of them into starvation. This was the result of Communist forces attempting to expand control. Of course the Allies (not just the Americans and a few Canadians, as you put it, but by your own source the British, French, Italian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese, and American s) fought with the Whites against the Bolsheviks.
But, to use your own "logic" - we're not talking about the Bolsheviks.
Your credentials in this regard as compared to the GWU researchers are nil.
Actually you know nothing of my credentials. But, in any case, the research is not my own. I suggest you do a search on the Internet.
The parts dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis being percipitated by the Berlin Wall for example.
Then this is our problem - you're simply too ignorant to be able to comprehend written text. I did not say that the Berlin Wall precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. I said that the Berlin Wall was an example of the USSR's desire to delineate and extend their own control, a strong ind
No, you say "I was wrong, but ..." and expect the "but" to matter. You were wrong. Just admit it.
From George Washington University [gwu.edu] Cuban Missile Crisis site:
How typical of a conspiracy theorist to find one source that he can distort to back up his ridiculous position, and ignore all other evidence.
Even looking at the source you provide, two facts become very clear:
- You discontinue your shallow analysis at the point at which the US installed missiles in Turkey. Thus, obviously in your analysis this is the cause - you refuse to consider any other factors (the conduct of the Soviet Union following WWII, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the massacare of millions of innocent Germans, Kruschev's posturing, etc). If you start your account of history with an action by one party, by your account everything is a result of that action. But this is only because you are distorting the truth.
- The source you cite doesn't actually back your position. Note the following excerpts:
Guidelines for OPERATION MONGOOSE
and
Although Kennedy never formally authorized an invasion
So you are stating that an action that was never taken was the provocation? Even more hilarious is that this source states:
Cuban intelligence had infiltrated the CIA's exile groups
So, obviously, there was a real threat about which to be concerned. But since you're pro-USSR (only because you're anti-USA), this is all okay to you.
You will forgive me if I take their analysis over your incomprehensible, unsubstantiated, delusional fabrications
I'm interested to know - which parts do you think were fabrications? That the USSR slaughtered millions of innocent Germans after WWII in an act of "retributive justice" (this is thoroughly documented - I suggest you look up the words "Berlin Airlift" for starters)? That the USSR erected the Berlin Wall (I suggest you pay a visit to reality for that one)? That Kruschev did not wish to expand control of the USSR?
First they create the state of Israel, the anti-semitic bunch, and then in a fit of anti-semitism, they give it to the Jews! And all that so they can pass resolutions against Israel when it goes berserk later!
Actually Israel was created under pressure by the major controlling nations who were the fledgling nation's allies. Since then the UN has become decidedly anti-semitic and specifically anti-Israel. Perhaps you haven't heard of Israel's "Test Resolution"? The Israelis proposed a resolution to protect Israeli children from terrorism. The UN had just approved a similar proposal from Egypt to protect Palestinian children. Yet Egypt then led opposition to the Israeli resolution. The entire Non-Aligned Movement (led by Egypt) did their best to sabotage this document with amendments and changes. Israel pulled it because their point had been made.
And don't you just love when pedantry backfires? Yes, "semite" does mean "member of a group of Semitic-speaking individuals." But the term "anti-semitic" is defined as "discrimination against or hostility towards Jews". You might also be interested to know that while the word "kill" means to take the life of, "kilometer" does not mean to take the life of a meter.
Pol Pot came to power because you bombed Cambodia and destablized it!
Yes, this is true. And I have never stated otherwise. Nixon - who few Americans will try to say was a good president - unwisely decided to bomb Cambodia due to a perceived Communist threat. This created the situation for Pol Pot to rise to power (much like all of our nations created Hitler and the Nazis by our ridiculous demands after WWI).
My point in bringing up Vietnam is that after the war was over, there was no international effort to stop the genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge. The world sat back and watched. Just as you wanted to
So, in your own words: you recant your original position, that the USSR was not a threat and thus was a strawman. That's all that matters.
As for the rest of it: you have a very ill-informed world view and imagine that the US was the sole provacateur during the Cold War. This is a position so oblivious to fact that it stymies me. It would take pages to educate you as to the actual events of the cold war, but your inaccuracies about the Cuban Missile Crisis at least need to fully pointed out.
You claim that the USSR was forced to place missiles in Cuba because of US missiles in Turkey. This is, simply, ludicrous. The USSR was actually more pissed off about our presence in Berlin than anything else - Kruschev actually called Berlin the "bone in his throat". The USSR wanted to take over all of Germany (and this is a long history going back to the systematic massacre of innocent Germans by the Russians - numbering into the millions - after WWII). The Russians built the Berlin wall after the Vienna summit of 1961, a pure act of aggression.
Kruschev, much like Kennedy, wanted his country to come out on top in the cold war. Kennedy was an inexperienced president, and Kruschev felt that he could push him around. So after dominating Kennedy at the Vienna summit, and building the Berlin wall, he felt that it was time to take decisive action and place nuclear missiles within strike range of the US. This was all aggression - not response.
In fact, the missiles in Turkey which you keep blathering about were obsolete technology!
This is just one example of the shallowness of your world view. That you could look at this one incident and come to the conclusion that this was all due to US aggression - completely ignoring the role the USSR played - shows your ignorance and bias.
Nothing of the sort. I base my assertion on this simple fact: since the creation of Israel the UN General Assembly passed 429 anti-Israel resolutions, in which Israel was "condemned" 321 times. From 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel. During that span, Israel was "condemned" 49 times (source wikipedia). If that is not an expression of regret, I am not sure what is
It's actually an expression of anti-Semitism, largely because so many of the UN member countries have large Islamic communities. Israel cannot be erased, it was created and has a right to exist - no matter how much you anti-Semites want to destroy it or enact your "final solution".
Your nation has killed far more people due to its actions then its inactions ever could. And I am talking the brazenly unjustifiable ones like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia or Iraq!
Once again proving my point regarding your ignorance. You don't even know how many people were killed in Vietnam after we finally withdrew (estimates are 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 killed by Pol Pot's regime after we withdrew; war deaths were lower than that). How many people were killed in the Sudan? (estimates are around 40,000 people killed and >1,000,000 displaced)? In Bosnia? On and on?
You earlier made the statement that Hitler was an exception to your "let them kill themselves" rule because he actually tried to expand. So, by your reasoning, if Hitler had just stayed in Germany and killed all the Jews there, you'd be fine with that, too.
You are a psychotic racist.
In closing, I really just have to let you speak for yourself:
You are the leading bullshiter of free world, hands down, no contest there
Again, self-righteous, pompous, self-aggrandizing, megalomaniac bullshit.
you are just a wart on the ass of the planet
You seriously claim this isn't overtly demented anti-US hate speech? This is why people who are deemed psychotic are not allowed to defend themselves in court - all they have to do is open their mouth and we see how crazy they are.
The problem is, the idiot is making the above claims. The control group is compromised.
I actually WAS being civil
One need only look at your own words to see this is not true - I quote:
Pardon me if I don't believe your lies.
It's just as full of shit as you are
Perhaps you simply consider this kind of behavior "civil". Most do not.
I, however, have been extremely civil. I simply posited an assertion - that Canadians insult us because they have a national inferiority complex. When you attacked this statement I patiently distinguished insult from criticism, and offered concrete proof for my theory (their own PM admitting as much).
You, on the other hand, have simply resorted to name-calling and other childish methods in an attempt to bully me into silence.
I am standing up for the people you are slandering and you call it childish
I particularly enjoy how anyone who gets his blood in a boil will quickly say that they are "standing up" for someone. You're not standing up for anyone, you're just posting to a bulletin board, and engaging in a rather petty argument with someone you don't even know. This is actually the biggest problem with the US-haters and people like yourself: you think just loudly disagreeing with action, rather than offering alternatives or concrete suggestions, places you on a moral high ground.
And, for your edification: "slander" refers to oral communication. This might be considered libel, were I actually making a statement about a particular person.
I can't condone your tactic of spreading bullshit about your oppononents' motivations
I'm not spreading bullshit. I'm simply making a valid, backed statement about the motivations of people who incessantly mock us. Mocking is not criticism, it is not constructive, and it certainly does not derive from moral or intellectual superiority.
"Okay, gentlemen. We've been hired to plan a media blitz for a new company." ... how about an MTV-style commercial with kids dancing to 'Can't Touch This'?"
"What do they do?"
"Well, they research and market haptic peripherals."
"Huh?"
"Basically the stuff that reads your fingerprints. They want something fresh, exciting - something to pull the youth market."
"Okay
[SILENCE]
"Maybe what they really need is a catchy slogan."
"How about 'InGen Haptic Peripherals: OUR devices can recognize a severed finger. Can THEIRS?'".
"This is going to be a long day."
Actually, no there wasn't. You are again asserting a false point.
Difference of race never clashed with the definition of marriage. It clashed with the practice of marriage, and this was found to be illegal and forcibly discontinued as a practice. This is because race is not inherently defined or constricted within the marriage contract - and never has been in the United States or Canada. Gender is. Just as number of partners is. Just as the age of partners is. By your reasoning, disallowing polygamy is just like racism. Disallowing marriage between non-consenting or non-legal-age partners is just like racism.
which is why I used the analogy
No, you used the analogy in the hope to blind us to your lack of basis with an emotional argument. A common strategy when you are arguing a flawed position.
This will, I suspect, one day be the case for the issue of sexual orientation, as well
Only if we allow debate of the issue to be founded upon such ignorant assertions as yours, which I will fight to my last breath.
Hardly.
And what I was, specifically, pointing up is the way your national media routinely mocks and ridicules Americans. You have shows which dedicate entire segments to mocking us ("This Hour Has 22 Minutes", anything else Rick Mercer does). Commercials become popular in Canada if they show Americans as stupid, or in some way humiliate us (the beaver attacking the American in the bar, the hockey puck breaking the American's face mask on the moon, on and on). MPs become popular if they insult Americans (Carolyn Parrish). Your news programs daily focus on anything that can embarass the US (how they thought we were being selfish for "only" giving $350 million to tsunami aid, etc). At the end of the year your news programs make a special summation of stupid lines people have said - sound bites - throughout the year. Oddly they only focus on American sound bites. The list continues.
You cannot possibly compare this with people making asses of themselves on the Internet - people do that regardless of where they're from and what they believe. But your cultural bias and contempt is visible in your daily entertainment, news, and all other forms of media.
After the dispute over the Iraq war there was a slight increase in anti-Canadian vitriol, but your anti-American rhetoric goes back years. And, as an American, living in America I never hear anyone talk about Canada. Occasionally some loudmouth gets on the television (usually Fox news) saying we should invade Canada or whatever, but generally we don't mention you. No need to.
but you still feel the need to twist words instead of realising that people are simply trying to use non-flamebait terms to try to provoke a rational discussion
No, I simply recognize equivocation when I see it. It's a lot like someone saying "I hate negroes ... except for you, Bob. You're one of the good ones."
I've never claimed our health care was the best in the world but I wouldn't call it broken
Funny. Your government, your media, and the majority of your health care professionals certainly seem to think it is. It takes 50% of all your taxation (in Ontario that's between 40-50% of your income plus 15% combined sales tax). Yet it is remarkably inefficient and losing money.
Certainly it's better than the "oh, your poor? You'll have to go die in the gutter then.." system you guys have going on.
Precisely what I'm talking about - you're simply ignorant of our system. Your ignorance is deemed excusable because it allows you to say something against the US, but if I were equally ignorant of your system I would be mocked.
Yes, ours is a "pay as you go" approach. But most employers now have their employees on some type of copay play which has our individual costs much lower than yours for health care. If you don't have a job and are penniless you aren't turned away - if you have a non-life-threatening condition there are free clinics, and if your condition is more serious you will be treated and billed but you can claim bankruptcy or other debt protection.
My point was that your system is not the perfect solution that you love to claim, nor is your backyard free from mess. Perhaps rather than focus your energy so much on mocking and ridiculing us you should fix your own problems. One problem both of us share is the ridiculous cost of health care supplies. Perhaps if we both focused on this issue we could fix a common problem.
Canadians prefer to spend tax dollars on things with more tangable value like education, healthcare
Probably because you have the luxury of relying upon our military to defend you. It would be amazing if you built your military to the
So, in other words:
"Other than a completely different distinguishing characteristic, what's the difference?"
Many of you are clearly deluded into believing that the argument is the same when you substitute the words "black people", "interracial couples", or other irrelevant subjects into arguments against same-sex religion. It is a transparent attempt to add weight to your position by shoehorning in completely irrelevant emotional subjects.
In order for there to be an analogy there has to be recognized common ground between the two subjects you are attempting to analogize. Marriage is accepted as a contract between one man and one woman (in our society). Differences of race do not clash with this definition. Differences of gender obviously do.
Your argument is just as flawed as saying "Why can't a man be on a woman's basketball team? Black women can!"
Interesting how your position has changed. First the Soviet Union was a strawman - not a real threat. Then when examples were given of what type of threat the Soviet Union was, you stated they were a real threat, but only because they were responding to US aggression. This is known to be false by anyone who has read their history. In fact you can't even pretend to believe it for long - I quote:
USSR had its own ulterior motives and was supremely brutal
So to summarize your position: the USSR was a nonexistent threat that was supremely brutal. The USSR was a non-brutal brutal strawman which didn't act aggressively, but if they did it was just because the US provoked them into it. Your anti-American bias is, frankly, psychotic.
Oh, and just to remind you, the topic is "defending" Canada.
A topic which, like all the others we have covered, you appear supremely unqualified to debate. You don't seem to realize that "defending" free countries doesn't just mean getting out your gun when Ivan comes knocking on your door. Imagine what would have happened if the US had not grown its military, but the USSR had. The world would be a much different place; however it is safe to assume that people like yourself would be decrying the brutality and horror of Russia and talking about what a saint the US was.
I never claimed that USA is the sole motivating force of terrorism
Really? Let me quote you:
the Islamic militants do not have any beef with us since we do not try to occupy their lands or prop-up their opressors
Your position: Islamists bomb the US, its allies, and random innocent people because we have bases on "their land" (including land granted the Jews by the UN, which you still believe belongs to the Islamists) and we "prop up" their oppressors. Both of these positions have been proven false; the militants themselves have said democracy is their enemy, and you have even offered other causes for their antagonism. Now you want to pretend you never said it. If I said something that stupid, so would I.
A grave mistake which the UN regretted ever since.
Again, let us summarize. You know more than the UN. You know more than the US. If only we were all as enlightened as you. You're nothing more than a thinly-veiled, anti-American, anti-Semitic racist. You seem to believe that the world can just sort itself out, and we should never get involved. Some more of your choice quotes:
the problems of Spain and France are internal problems of Spain and France
The problem was and will remain for Koreans to sort out. Just like Vietnam was for the Vietnamese
I'm sure you feel that the Sudanese are doing just fine, along with the Mogadishans, Bosnia, and of course the "supremacist" Jews you hate so much. C'mon, show your true colors: you really believe nobody should have stopped Hitler, don't you?
The defense of free society is a responsibility that has largely fallen to us, because we are the leader of the free world. We protect you every day, as we have done for years. Not because we particularly like you - but because, by your good luck, you are like a tick on the neck of a big dog. You are one of the many countries that take from us with one hand and flip us off with the other.
People like you speak in grandiose terms, but I see you for what you are. You're just a coward. If the death is happening across the globe, it doesn't bother you - as long as you're not involved. You would rather 1000 people die due to your inaction than 1 die due to your action.
And if you mattered, we might care. At the end of the day you're still the mouse, and we're still the elephant.
Strange how childish this sounds. "I could do it if I wanted to!"
I could refraing from name-calling
Could you? You haven't. You've been throwing around terms like "liar" for quite a while.
But that would be lying on my part
It would be lying to discuss something in a civil manner? You've really got your panties in a bunch.
I honestly point this out.
Suuure you do. Hate to break the news, but just calling someone a liar, using ad hominem attacks, and just being childish is neither honest or laudable. Beauty, eh?
And isn't it grand that now you won't have to convince me? You can just force me to think like you! God bless democracy.
but, might I suggest you review you arguments, and replace "homosexual couples" with "mixed-race couples", and tell me again how this isn't discrimination
I suggest you review your arguments and replace "homosexual couples" with "oversized beach towel", or "Wankel rotary engine", and see if it still makes sense.
One cannot replace the subject about which one is arguing with a non-anologous subject and then use the same arguments. Homosexual couples aren't the same as interracial couples. Not allowing an interracial couple to marry is unreasonable discrimination, and does violate a person's rights. Not allowing homosexuals to marry does nothing of the sort. The fact that your kind have to lie to convince people (and then force them to do what you want when the lies don't work) just reveals the weakness of your position.
You certainly set yourself up well: first linking yourself without evidence of connection to such hot topics as "women's sufferage" and "slavery", then by pronouncing that your position is the "right" and "legal" way. Your openness to debate on the issue is heartwarming.
Fortunately, unlike certain other democracies in the world, our government and judicial system realize that popular opinion can *never* be allowed to trump the rights afforded to citizens under our human rights act.
Precisely my point: marriage between any number of people of any gender is not a right. Find that spelled out in any document, I'll concede. This simply is not a rights issue, any more than not allowing humans to wed animals, trees, lampposts, or children.
Marriage is an established institution. Those who follow the guidelines, obtain the paperwork, and pay the fees have the right to call themselves married. Many societies see the institution as one between a single man and a single woman, both of legal age. Some allow multiple partners (we do not, yet nobody is crying over that). Some allow same-sex partners. There is no objective issue of "right" or "wrong". There is the definition of the concept, the currently accepted societal norm, those who want to change it, and those who wish it to remain the same. The problem with your type is you want to silence anyone who disagrees with you and force your opinion on us. That's not democracy.
And that, much to the chagrin of many a bigotted Canadian, includes discrimination based on sexuality.
Again, the issue is not one of discrimination. It is of a group of people wishing to change an accepted practice for their benefit (and, in many peoples' view, to the harm of everyone else).
Unfortunately the very beliefs that ended slavery were forgotten by subsequent generations in the US.
Keep playing that violin. Gay people are not slaves. They are not oppressed. They just want something that they don't have. Life is hard.
The fact is, our government is doing the *ethical* thing here
Whew, thank goodness! As long as the government will only speak for me when they're right, we're safe!
So, citing it as an example is, really, just a demonstration of your clear lack of understanding regarding how a civilized country should operate, and also demonstrates how you've forsaken the lessons taught by your own forebearers.
What it illustrates very clearly is how poorly you understand the democratic form of government. I'd be curious to see how you would react should your PM decide to enforce the banning of abortions. There are many who feel this is the "right" thing to do, and use the exact same melodramatic hyperbole as you to justify their position. I doubt you'd be crowing then.
Are you sure you're not Canadian?
The only important point here is that the Soviet Union was capable of deploying missiles in Cuba. This handily defeats your "strawman" position. The Cold War was very real, and causation for it is much deeper than the US putting missiles in Turkey.
In a fit of stupidity USSR responded to a request of a then Afghan government of Nur Mohammad Taraki for help to defeat a coup by an Islamist named Hafizullah Amin sponsored by the USA. And the rest is history.
Just plain wrong. First Daud seized power from King Zahir (without killing him) and made Afghanistan a republic. A constitution was created, and Daud was elected president. He even had a civilian cabinet. But Daud was killed in a coup by the Revolutionary Council in 1978 (led by Noor Muhammed Turaki and Hafizullah Amin). These men suspended Afghanistan's constitution and attempted to institute "scientific socialism". Devout Muslims resisted this; Amin asked the USSR for help, and the US backed the Mujahadeen against the USSR.
To clarify: the US backed the will of the people against the rule of a tyrannical leader and the power of the Soviet Union (your strawman).
Quite different from supporting terrorists blowing up civilians.
While that was indeed happening
Thank you. You just admitted your statement was entirely false.
Stalin and particularly the later governments had no intention of expanding to Canada, and as the declassifed Kremlin archives show, were always in a reactionary, defensive stance to what they preceived as their mortal threat: NATO. Note that Warsaw Pact was formed in response to NATO, not the other way around.
Despite this being moot, since you've admitted your position was wrong, all of this is the direct result of our power standing up against them.
Not what they said at all. I suggest you read more.
All of whom have large impoverished Islamic populations and subsequent internal problems.
Also Spain was singled out for helping out the USA in its Iraq crusade, all attacks ceased since they withdrew.
Obviously you are unaware of past actions by the Basque separatist group, the ETA, et al. And are you advocate giving in to terrorist demands?
You must mean the seven-days war, when Israel tried to expand - oh, no, sorry, they defended themselves from annhialation by Arabs.
You must mean the daily suicide bombings the Israelis commit against the "Palestinians" ... oh, no wait, that's backwards.
By the way, Israel not being a neighbor of Canada is irrelevant. The UN, of which you are a (very minor) member, created Israel. And the point was that not just our "bases overseas" cause Islamic violence. Again you very readily admit there are other motivating factors than the US, or the US military bases.
No because, South and North Korea are the same country and the South wishes to overtake and rule the North, while the North wishes to rule the South.
Sorry, I presumed basic reading comprehension abilities. My meaning was: why do you think this is a concern for Korea, and not a done deal? Because we prevented North Korea - a true hell hole that you don't seem to worry about - from taking over South Korea.
Because there is nothing to indicate that China is on a mission to take over the planet
Of course not. NOT NOW. Why don't you examine some of the 20th-century rhetoric coming from that countr
They should have listened to that kid at Best Buy! It's for your own protection, dammit!
Actually, no.
What you have is: "If your 'criticism' is actually thinly-veiled mockery, based upon ignorant assertions, progapanda-based mis-characterization, and mean-spiritedness; and it is only meant to be demeaning, then it probably comes from an inferiority complex".
Canadians do, in general, feel inferior to us as a country (in strength, world presence, and global positioning). They state this all the time - Trudeau called Canada the "mouse in bed with the elephant". As in most cases, they find the best outlet for this sense of inadequacy is to mock us. Pardon me if I don't feel like bending over and taking it.
You must mean the strawman that was building missile bases in Cuba? The strawman that invaded Afghanistan? The strawman that has oppressed most of the small countries that comprised the Soviet Union (talk to a Ukrainian about what a strawman the USSR was).
What happened was we outspent the USSR on protection, which caused it to collapse. Another instance of our actions bringing about peace, and another instance of our actions not being recognized.
the Islamic militants do not have any beef with us since we do not try to occupy their lands
Really? Funny how they say something completely different. Something about democracy being a great evil.
Also, might interest you to know that the Islamists are terrorizing Spain (which is not a gigantic power like the US), France (ditto), and many other small countries.
They also have a tiny beef with the existence of a place called Israel. You know, the place we all created for the Jews to live?
Your attitude - we haven't been attacked yet, so we don't care - is markedly self-centered and naive.
North Korea is only concerned with South Korea and you. China wants regional influence and to become a commercial power, their problems are with Taiwan.
Why do you think North Korea is only concerned with South Korea (as you put it)? Maybe because of UN (mostly US) action to prevent the invasion of South Korea? Why do you think China isn't expanding? Maybe because of our military and economic might?
I love this new-age short-sightedness about how the world is so peaceful and we don't need military power. It's largely the US and military power that has made the world peaceful.
So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.
And you undermine your whole position: if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.
The initial reason for war in Iraq was for terrorists and WMDs.
Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher (and don't forget this also convinced Tony Blair, but you don't have an ingrained cultural bias against the British).
Oh, don't forget that the Mujahideen were also freedom fighters that you abandoned in Afganistan
Yep. We armed them against invasion by Soviet forces - something Canada had a vested interest in.
Funny how they are known as terrorists now
Not really funny, considering they "now" run terrorist training camps where they plot to blow up innocent civilians (not to fight against the military force as they were trained).
Oh, and I like how you completely dropped the issue of the first Gulf War. Probably because you realize the contradiction: after the first Gulf War, the world was mad that we didn't back the freedom fighers in Iraq. Now they're mad that we fought to liberate Iraq. The double standard to which only the US is held.
Cyprus, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, just to name a few
Umm ... you can't be serious. Oh, wait:
granted we didn't stop an entire war
You're not.
but stopping battles where we can does help
Sure. That's why Bosnia is now a Utopian society? Or Mogadishu? Or Haiti?
Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.
You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?
Oh yes, all hail the mighty Americans who came in half way through the war. Any country can be the deciding factor when they join the war when it's almost done.
Almost done, "eh"? Pray tell how you would have pushed the Germans back to Germany (remember Market Garden? Occupied France and Holland?). The war was not "almost done", it was at a standstill. And you seem to forget the entire Pacific Theater, which we ended with the atom bomb. Your ignorance staggers me.
No, according to you, your solution would be to drop bombs on them and kill them all. Great solution there.
This is more insulting than stupid - you do realize how many of our young men have died specifically to avoid civilian deaths in Iraq? How every attempt is made to not just adopt the "kill them all" attitude? This is what terrorists exploit.
Well, I think the world is a better place without wars.
Well fucking hell, let's just get you a gold star. What a childish statement. Wars exist whether or not you are involved with them, vote for them, or promote them. The world is constantly at war, yet people like you seem content to let "those others" kill themselves, and innocent people, as long as your hands aren't dirty. This is the same reasoning that condems the US for trying to protect Vietnam from Communism and genocide, but says nothing about the mass murder committed after we withdrew.
You know what really shows me Canada's true colors? Your complete inaction in the Sudan. The US tried to push through the resolution to have t
We're not arguing what you think we're arguing. Valid criticism is always acceptable. Open mocking and ridicule is not. I am protesting the latter, not the former.
Canadians who make fun of Americans aren't doing so "for their own good". They're doing it just to have a laugh at a country they resent. And the very notion that a Canadian implicitly knows more about freedom, society, human rights, or any of that nonsense irks me. Canada has its own problems.
I'm not surprised to see Slashdot pushing this because pandering is a virtue curiously prevalent in those who are supposed to be highly-educated.
At the very best, this is an ignorant statement. Because this would be very difficult to measure. The thing is, people like you don't consider deaths due to the UN embargoes, totalitarian regimes, or anything like that, as being countable. Only deaths as the result of US military action. Kind of shows your whole agenda.
Funny how the mission statement changes when the objectives couldn't be completed.
The mission was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from the start, and from the beginning the rhetoric of "freeing the Iraqi people" was employed. Most Americans were in favor of staying out the course after the UN action during the Clinton administration, and felt very guilty about having abandoned freedom fighters in Iraq to their fate (interesing note: in "Three Kings" this is played up to make us feel bad, now Russell has made a film to make us feel bad for following through!). Maybe you just don't know enough about the subject.
Let's just list out the "nothing" that Canada has done. Anytime we deploy our military (as sad as it is), we put them in world hot spots for PEACE KEEPING. We go to places to STOP wars, not to wage them.
I love this argument. Where, exactly, have you prevented wars? The Sudan? Mogadishu? Bosnia? Your model of doing nothing is certainly no more effective than our model of doing something. And it has been repeatedly shown that peacekeeping forces actually do more harm than good.
Oh, if you want to talk about war, let's talk about WWI, and WWII. Just so you know, Canada was actively participating in the two wars SEVERAL YEARS before the US got involved. So don't ever say we have contributed nothing.
Another humorous point - yes you were there, but don't you find it interesting that our presence turned the tide? We were the deciding factor in that war.
Spend it building homes, giving food, clothing. That is how you make a better world.
Good idea, let's build a home in insurgent controlled territory. See how long that will last. Frickin' hippie.
I love to hear Canadians talk about how you would make the world better. Sorry, I've lived in Canada. I've seen your homeless problems, your broken health care system, your high housing costs. Looks very familiar. Socialism is not the magic answer.
No, you make fun of us as a means to feel better about yourselves. It's a classic inferiority complex, and very transparent.
That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news.
Actually, no, it's institutionalized propaganda. First, the link you provide is to a story about how a large number of Americans now think "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks". It is not about this unmeasurable "knowledge of the rest of the world" about which you speak. It is one instance of propaganda in our own society. You know, much like the way you are all brainwashed to believe that Maher Arar was abducted by FBI officials, and not handed over to us by the Canadian government - complete with false background information. Much like your PM forcing your government to vote for same-sex marriage, even though a substantial amount of the government and population are against the initiative.
The "ignorant American" flag just doesn't fly. For every ignorant person in our society there is at least one in your society; for every fat person in ours, at least one in yours. We have the good grace to not mock you. What does that say about you?
But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people
Aw, shucks, that's just right nice of you! I'd love to hear your opinion on black people. The "good ones" are ok too, right?
We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election
Odd that someone with as much "worldly knowledge" as you claim to have wouldn't know that Bush won by a slim margin. And, hey, how did Chretien work out for you? Paul Martin fixed your broken health care system and military yet?
We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media
You have seen nothing offensive until you have seen the way Americans are portrayed by your media. So don't even start.
Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive
So you mean, they're politicians? Wow.
But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.
Classic, and would probably seem like a logical conclusion to someone who had never lived in Canada. But perhaps you could regale us all with the tale of how the last mayor of Toronto was elected based upon a trumped-up media story that actually didn't affect the city one iota (the proposed island airport bridge)? How about that sponsorship scandal? That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Clean up your own backyard, 'nuck. Then lecture us "aboot" government and society.
The problem with that statement is that the basic assumption is flawed. Canadians are not our friends. They are smug, pretentious people who love to ridicule us while simultaneously exploiting all the benefits of being our ally.
In other words, there just like every other second-place nation we protect.
I'm sure next on Slashdot we'll be hearing about how Canada (which is, of course, a Utopian society) only uses Linux and Open Source software, is 100% vegan, can freely exchange pirated materials, etc.
The only thing I despise more than a smug, complacent Canadian is the self-hating American who can't wait to slag on their own country.
Mod me a troll, I don't care. I know how it works here. Say Canada is Utopia and the US is hell, it's objective and news-worthy. Say it isn't all it's cracked up to be, and you're trolling.
Transparently false. What do you call being arrested and detained?
I'm sure a teacher would give you a great grade for this sophomoric reply. But it just doesn't measure up in the real world.
Note how you conveniently ignored all given examples of giving up rights for the "greater good", to simply make your granola remark. Or do you actually believe the world would be better if we all had the "right" to rape, murder, and steal?
(For some quaint takes on this Public Good b.s. look up such charming bastions of the peaceful society as Robespierre and Mao).
For some more practical takes, try examining U.S. Penal Code.
Anyone who accepts society implicitly accepts limits upon their rights. If this truly bothers you, go live on a deserted island and pick berries.
If you want to argue specific instances of curtailment of rights that you find objectionable, that's certainly germane and reasonable. But as a general argument your position holds no water.