Go back
No Country for New

No Country for New "Messiahs"

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dace Ace
Do us a favor, don't post any more threads about Canada. It just cluters things for the real issues.

When Canada speaks...does anybody listen? Canada has an impact on its own defense, as much as it has an impact on world issues. Not much.

The only way to make change, whether it is through peace, economics, or war, is from a position of strength. That is why Peru, Italy, nor Canada are consulted on the big decisions.
Learn some History. Canada WAS in a postion of Strength....right up until 1984. Do you know what happened in 1984? Do you know what a Bomarc missle is? I'll help you out....

In 1984, Canada dismantiled its missle sites and removed all nuclear warheads from our soil. We did this in an attempt to ease COLD WAR tensions between the RUSSIA, and the US/ NATO. We did it for the greater good.

We could easily obtain more nuclear weapons to "deal from a position of strength" as you put it but that isn't the Canadian way. For all your bluster about "family values" and "morals", you all push them aside on the world stage. Well, Canada refuses to follow your model of "might is right" and prefers to show leadership by EXAMPLE.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. What's worse, is we actually get criticized for choosing the high road. 😕

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by uzless
Let's clear up a few blatant errors shall we?

Because the US has a giant military other countries feel they can sham us by keeping their militaries small, knowing The US will come to their rescue.

[b] Uh, no. Canada's military size is proportionally similar to the US's. We have 30 million people that live in our country. You have 400 million. Do yo ...[text shortened]... rgencies after countries like the US leave to go fight somewhere else...ala Afghanistan
[/b]
You do have a good military, not as big as the US... of course. So! I'm just saying The US (America) thinks it has to be big enough to protect every friendly country ( it's our fault). So, we should simply cut our military in half to protect only the US. You may have as big or small a military as you want. If you can't muster one up...not my fault. If you need a larger one you'll have to reduce social programs or tax more...no concern of the US. We'll take the trillions left over from the military to give needy civilians ( US only) social services. Sounds like a big win for the US.

By the way, ah, i smell a bear under the North Pole and it ain't them there fluffy white ones.

Have a nice day. Need help?...don't call!

GRANNY.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by uzless
Learn some History. Canada WAS in a postion of Strength....right up until 1984. Do you know what happened in 1984? Do you know what a Bomarc missle is? I'll help you out....

In 1984, Canada dismantiled its missle sites and removed all nuclear warheads from our soil. We did this in an attempt to ease COLD WAR tensions between the RUSSIA, and the US/ NAT ...[text shortened]... work. What's worse, is we actually get criticized for choosing the high road. 😕
Actually, Canada has a helluva military and have always been among the first to fight. Even recently they've picked up tons of Euroslack in Afghanistan. Their soldiers fight hard and they fight smart. Any knocking of the Canadian military is a bit misplaced.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by smw6869
You do have a good military, not as big as the US... of course. So! I'm just saying The US (America) thinks it has to be big enough to protect every friendly country ( it's our fault). So, we should simply cut our military in half to protect only the US. You may have as big or small a military as you want. If you can't muster one up...not my fault. If you ne ...[text shortened]... t them there fluffy white ones.

Have a nice day. Need help?...don't call!

GRANNY.
whoa..recognition?? Must be a friday.

Clinton took your advice to heart and reduced the budget of the military. The US finally was able to balance its books.

Canada doesn't need a bigger army. No one is or will attack us as long as we stick to our foreign policy. (the current minority conservative government is trying to institute a more US style foreign policy which may end up costing us though)

As for Russia and their propensity to plant flags on the arctic sea floor, well, we are in international discussions to work out the borders. We'll be fine. They can plant as many flags as they want...this isn't the 15th Century.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
You can keep an eye on us...but i have to say you couldn't do much about anything we decided to do anyways....
Well, when 'you americans' finally piss off EVERY single other nation on earth - then maybe one day you'll find yourselves without any allies and just a bunch of missiles pointed in your direction and only xenophobia to defend yourself with...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by uzless
whoa..recognition?? Must be a friday.

Clinton took your advice to heart and reduced the budget of the military. The US finally was able to balance its books.

Canada doesn't need a bigger army. No one is or will attack us as long as we stick to our foreign policy. (the current minority conservative government is trying to institute a more US style f ...[text shortened]... s. We'll be fine. They can plant as many flags as they want...this isn't the 15th Century.
"As for Russia and their propensity to plant flags on the arctic sea floor, well, we are in international discussions to work out the borders. We'll be fine. They can plant as many flags as they want...this isn't the 15th Century"

A nation that is looking to expand their empire isn't going to let a peaceful country alone, just because you're willing to negotiate with them. They're looking for something....like oil, gas, natural resources. Ya see, if the Russians strike Canada with nukes the US would retaliate with nukes. Therefore Canada doen't need to waist money on having a nuke capability. The US, however, will still be spending millions on nukes every year which could go to the needy. It's best that we get rid of our nukes and be better diplomates. Lots of money will be saved there. If outher countries want a nuke program they'll have to do it on their own. Other nations who are afraid of the US will then dismantel their nukes also. Then all nations will get together and sing that CocaCola song while we all die of bowel rot.

GRANNY.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by uzless
Um, how would you characterize the state of the untaxed and unregulated Economy right now??? 🙄
It's not that the U.S. economy is undertaxed and unregulated, it is that it is suffering from too much bad policy, including the Democrats applying Affirmative Action to the financial world.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by smw6869
"As for Russia and their propensity to plant flags on the arctic sea floor, well, we are in international discussions to work out the borders. We'll be fine. They can plant as many flags as they want...this isn't the 15th Century"

A nation that is looking to expand their empire isn't going to let a peaceful country alone, just because you're willing to ne ...[text shortened]... ill get together and sing that CocaCola song while we all die of bowel rot.

GRANNY.
Granny, get out of the 1950's. Russia isn't going to nuke Canada anymore than we are going to nuke Iran. The consequences are too catastrophic. There is still mutual assured destruction.

You get more and more like DSR with every post.

This whole thread claiming that because Dems see Obama as a move in a new direction that they also see him as a "Messiah" is inane.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Granny, get out of the 1950's. Russia isn't going to nuke Canada anymore than we are going to nuke Iran. The consequences are too catastrophic. There is still mutual assured destruction.

You get more and more like DSR with every post.

This whole thread claiming that because Dems see Obama as a move in a new direction that they also see him as a "Messiah" is inane.
Clifford, please! I was talking about why Canada doesn't need nukes and therefore has more money for social programs. You're right, Canada and the US don't need Nukes. This isn't the 50's. The US should do away with it's nukes and use the money on the needy. There will be no mutual assured distruction if the US gets rid of it's freakin NUKES. Canada got rid of theirs long ago. It's time the US grows up. What is so hard to understand? I'm agreeing with you. Can you say CocaCola? It's the real thing! Cheers!

GRANNY.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I'll agree that Obama would experience similar foreign policy problems like the inexperienced Kennedy did should he be elected. Apart from that, I don't think they have much in common. Kennedy at least knew that in order to grow the economy, you don't tax and regulate it to death.
Right on! JFK's policies were more conservative than many so-called Republicans in office now. We remember John Kennedy and Obama is no John Kennedy!! By the way, Granny is talking some sense all of a sudden....way to go, girl! (another grandmother here).

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Crowley
Well, when 'you americans' finally piss off EVERY single other nation on earth - then maybe one day you'll find yourselves without any allies and just a bunch of missiles pointed in your direction and only xenophobia to defend yourself with...
Well, maybe we should make happy happy with Russia, China, Iran and north Korea. An aliance i mean. Then the other pissed off countries will know what it's like to be pissed on. I'm not saying this should happen....of course it shouldn't. That's just outrageous....or, maybe,.... Hmmmmmmm! Haaaaapy. Happy, Happy, Happy Talk...Lalalalala.

GRANNY.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by uzless
Learn some History. Canada WAS in a postion of Strength....right up until 1984. Do you know what happened in 1984? Do you know what a Bomarc missle is? I'll help you out....

In 1984, Canada dismantiled its missle sites and removed all nuclear warheads from our soil. We did this in an attempt to ease COLD WAR tensions between the RUSSIA, and the US/ NAT ...[text shortened]... work. What's worse, is we actually get criticized for choosing the high road. 😕
History, that is what influence you had, not today, not anymore, but only in history. Once those missles were gone (proving my point) your ability to weld any power was gone. That is nice that you did it for the greater good, but if we (the US) were not standing behind you with a big hockey stick, you would be drinking vodka & driving Lada's. There was no leadership in that decision. It was a method to reduce your spending on defense, so that you could have the socialized medicine that you have. Oh, by the way, how is paying that GST & PST?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Merk
Actually, Canada has a helluva military and have always been among the first to fight. Even recently they've picked up tons of Euroslack in Afghanistan. Their soldiers fight hard and they fight smart. Any knocking of the Canadian military is a bit misplaced.
I agree, the Canadian forces are a professional group, and have fought well with us all over the globe. The point I was trying to make is that they as too small, and lack stratic reach (aircraft carriers, long range missles, long range bombers, etc) to be a threat to anybody. That is due to the priority of the government.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Crowley
Well, when 'you americans' finally piss off EVERY single other nation on earth - then maybe one day you'll find yourselves without any allies and just a bunch of missiles pointed in your direction and only xenophobia to defend yourself with...
I think you're being too simplistic

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Countries that look to a charismatic "messiah" to lead them in difficult times often get into trouble. From Idi Amin in Uganda to Pol Pot in Cambodia, Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe -- men have "led" their people to perdition after describing themselves as the only men capable of leading their populations through difficu ...[text shortened]... an't deliver… just like France did under Napoleon and Nazi Germany did under Hitler.
What about George Washington?