01 Dec 04
Dubya gave a speech in Halifax, Nova Scotia today. During that speech, he attempted to push Canada into being a more active participant on his war on terror. To make his point, he quoted Former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who brought Canada into World War II:
"We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting for our enemies to attack us. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada." - King
I find a lot of irony in Dubya's choice of themes. The U.S. may think of themselves as heroes in World War II but to many people, they were only key Ally to stay out of the war until they were attacked on their own soil.
So, to George W. Bush, who suggests that the U.S. has some sort of moral high ground for being assertive defenders against evil, I have two words:
Pearl Harbour
01 Dec 04
Originally posted by DecanterHow do you know that the Japanese government and media
So, to George W. Bush, who suggests that the U.S. has some sort of moral high ground for being assertive defenders against evil, I have two words:
Pearl Harbour
weren't saying that they were doing a preemptive strike on
the US?
If they did so, how do you know it wasn't true?
Nemesio
01 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesioThe Japanese Government has nothing to do with it. Dubya is trying to motivate Canada to step in to support his little war based on our established history of trying to step up to do the right thing.
How do you know that the Japanese government and media
weren't saying that they were doing a preemptive strike on
the US?
If they did so, how do you know it wasn't true?
Nemesio
The U.S., by contract, has historically rarely been motivated by anything but myopic self-interest. I'm not saying Iraq is right or Iraq is wrong, but throughout its history, the U.S. has RARELY done what it is asking Canada to do: get involved in a major conflict without being attacked first.
Watching all the U.S. war movies about how they heroically won WWII single-handedly is laughable to me. They could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives by just stepping up when they had the chance.
For Bush to lecture Canada about doing the right thing is a joke.
(by the way, I'm not talking about his foreign or domestic policy or Canada's attitude towards him or anything... I'm just talking about a speech he made in Halifax)
01 Dec 04
Well, I can't agree with this! To put down Bush on the grounds of U.S. foreign policy in the 1930's is totally unfair. President Bush just expressed what he felt and to say that he didn't have the right to do that based on policies that he had nothing to do with is wrong.
01 Dec 04
Originally posted by jebryWell part of the point is that the past repeats itself. Of course
Well, I can't agree with this! To put down Bush on the grounds of U.S. foreign policy in the 1930's is totally unfair. President Bush just expressed what he felt and to say that he didn't have the right to do that based on policies that he had nothing to do with is wrong.
Decanter is not blaming Bush for what happened in the 1930-40s.
However, it is also not simply a matter of Bush saying what he 'felt.'
Foreign policy decisions should be made on 'feelings.' They should
be made based on a host of economic, security, and diplomatic reasons,
as well as with a respect for the autonomy for the other nation in
quesiton.
Bush has been wrong in his decisions for Iraq for a host of demonstrable
reasons; to look at other ways in which past Presidents were similarly
wrong is not an inapproriate thing to do.
Nemesio
01 Dec 04
Originally posted by jebryIn addition to what Nemesio said, keep in mind that I'm referring to the fact that Bush made reference to a former Prime Minister's comments about WWII. If you think it is unfair of me to compare Bush's decision on Iraq to U.S. foreign policy in the 1930s, then what do you think of Bush saying that Canada should react to Saddam the same way King reacted to Hitler?
Well, I can't agree with this! To put down Bush on the grounds of U.S. foreign policy in the 1930's is totally unfair. President Bush just expressed what he felt and to say that he didn't have the right to do that based on policies that he had nothing to do with is wrong.
That would open a Pandora's Box of comparisons, not the least of which would be whether Iraq would even be capable of invading 90% of Europe and exterminating millions of people.
01 Dec 04
Originally posted by DecanterWe could start small, like: Whether or not Iraq had WMD...
That would open a Pandora's Box of comparisons, not the least of which would be whether Iraq would even be capable of invading 90% of Europe and exterminating millions of people.
Hmm...Bush's analogy seems to have some fundamental problems.....
What a surprise.
Nemesio
01 Dec 04
Originally posted by DecanterEven then the US didn't declare war on Germany. We declared war on Japan. Germany declared war on the US 3 days after Pearl Harbor I believe. It may have been 4 days later. Either way, the US went to war in Europe.
Dubya gave a speech in Halifax, Nova Scotia today. During that speech, he attempted to push Canada into being a more active participant on his war on terror. To make his point, he quoted Former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who brought Canada into World War II:
"We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting for ...[text shortened]... moral high ground for being assertive defenders against evil, I have two words:
Pearl Harbour
President Bush needs to read a history book. He could start with one that addresses the Russian invasion of Afganhistan in 1980. How well did that work out for the all powerful Soviet Union? See any similarities between that invasion and the US invasion of Iraq? Hmmmm... Let's see - An all powerful military walks over a small, underfunded and undermanned army in a short period of time. The rest of the world raises hell about it, but Russia ignores them. Then the occupation of the country begins. The war's over right so let's occupy the place. Everybody knows it's over. Everybody, except of course for the people of Afghanistan. Nobody told them.
And so the bloody mess drags on for 10 years. 10 years of "terrorists attacks", insurgents bombing trucks and supply lines, blowing up buildings, camps, medical facilities, etc...
And Russia finally crawls out of Afghanistan with their tails tucked between their legs.
01 Dec 04
Originally posted by DecanterHay half empty booze jug... errr... decanter,
Dubya gave a speech in Halifax, Nova Scotia today. During that speech, he attempted to push Canada into being a more active participant on his war on terror. To make his point, he quoted Former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who brought Canada into World War II:
"We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting for ...[text shortened]... moral high ground for being assertive defenders against evil, I have two words:
Pearl Harbour
Ever bother to think that we learned not to let facist states come to fruition -- like we did in the mistake we made? You say it well. We were stupid. The part you miss is that we did learn. Not to appease facists.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWy"we learned not to let facist states come to fruition"
Hay half empty booze jug... errr... decanter,
Ever bother to think that we learned not to let facist states come to fruition -- like we did in the mistake we made? You say it well. We were stupid. The part you miss is that we did learn. Not to appease facists.
"Not to appease fascists."
Are you somehow suggesting that the sanctions were simply "appeasing" saddam? That prior to US invasion the UN was allowing a fascist state to come to fruition?
IF the world had acted when hitler invaded poland, as it did when saddam invaded kuwait, WWII may never have happened.
Seeing as saddam was stopped in his tracks over a decade ago, I'd have to say that lesson was learnt...
MÅ¥HÅRM
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by DecanterSounds to me that you are jealous of canada's minimal contribution to WW2 compared to America's
The Japanese Government has nothing to do with it. Dubya is trying to motivate Canada to step in to support his little war based on our established history of trying to step up to do the right thing.
The U.S., by contract, has historically rarely been motivated by anything but myopic self-interest. I'm not saying Iraq is right or Iraq is wrong, but th ...[text shortened]... nada's attitude towards him or anything... I'm just talking about a speech he made in Halifax)
'do the right thing?', as in, what exactly are you doing that is 'right'?....Canada is a safe haven for terrorists, and your government, at least when that sissy Chretian was in power, hasn't done much to agressively root out terror cells, and you immigration policy is the culprit- in all fairness, ours sucks too
'Myopic self-interests'?..you gotta be kidding me, right? You Canucks have been getting a free ride from danger for the past 60 years...in other words MY tax dollars have been paying for your free 'boating pleasures'...so continue to enjoy your freedom; by the way, Canada was attacked on 9-11 too...you're just to blind to see it...your turn will come..eventually..
US war movies make you laugh, eh?...what movie depicts America winning WW2 single-handedly..I'd like to see it...are you sure you're not talking about "Bullwinkle and Rocky"? 🙄 😲
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicApparently, 45 000 Canadian military personnel were killed in WWII, approximately 1/10 of the number of American military persons killed. Let's assume that the American and Candian populations were in roughly the same proportion during WWII as now. If as you say the Canadian contribution was smaller than the American, then surely the Canadians had a lower enlistment rate than the Americans. Therefore, the number of Canadians in the military would be less than 1/10th of the number of Americans in the military, given that Canada's population is about 1/10th that of America's. Therefore the Canadians would have had more killed per capita than the Americans--a larger contribution--contradiction.
Sounds to me that you are jealous of canada's minimal contribution to WW2 compared to America's
'do the right thing?', as in, what exactly are you doing that is 'right'?....Canada is a safe haven for terrorists, and your government, at least when that sissy Chretian was in power, hasn't done much to agressively root out terror cells, and yo ...[text shortened]... y..I'd like to see it...are you sure you're not talking about "Bullwinkle and Rocky"? 🙄 😲
Clearly this argument depends on a hazy interpretation of the size of the contribution and some assumptions, but it shows how ambiguous you're being. In any case, something that kills 45 000 people is hardly 'minimal'.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by Decanter
So, to George W. Bush, who suggests that the U.S. has some sort of moral high ground for being assertive defenders against evil, I have two words:
Pearl Harbour
Is it commonly believed that the USA were to enter into the war in anycase, hence Japan's decision to attack the USA.
cheers.
02 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenHow quickly you defend non-Americans...at least you are consistent...was he not being 'ambiguous' or 'intellectually dishonest'?
Apparently, 45 000 Canadian military personnel were killed in WWII, approximately 1/10 of the number of American military persons killed. Let's assume that the American and Candian populations were in roughly the same proportion duri ...[text shortened]... ny case, something that kills 45 000 people is hardly 'minimal'.
😲 And, I suppose 'something' thst kills 3,000 people is also hardly 'minimal'?...did you respond to his brother mateoluse when he trivialated the deaths of those 3,000 Americans?....nooooo....so, split hairs all you want....I'll stand by the comparisons....