NationStates Jolt Archive

On Wednesday, Marine helicopters flew the first mission to the shattered city of Calang to drop off a French medical team*. Helicopters also delivered supplies to the Indonesian troops in Meulaboh, further south.

Gee, last week Jaques Chirak complained that US presence was to large in the area. He was forming a coalition with other European nations to combat and compete with US presence. Yet this week the French had to be flown to the area by US MARINES!!!

Where is the French Navy, German Navy...et all?

The UN had the audacity to call the US "stingy" in its response, yet to date no other country has given as much cash/material/logistic support as the US Government or the private citizens of the USA. No other nation has flown more rescue missions as the USA.

*bolded by me

from:

KIRO TV (http://www.kirotv.com/news/4076049/detail.html)

The UN, hypocritical? No...I refuse to believe your lies!

;)

Some are worried that the US is using the Tsunami as an excuse to move into areas where they would never normally be allowed. For example in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, 13,000 American COMBAT troops have been dispatched there. Is it really paranoid to suspect that USA might exploit a tragedy to further its imperial designs?

The UN had the audacity to call the US "stingy" in its response, yet to date no other country has given as much cash/material/logistic support as the US Government or the private citizens of the USA. No other nation has flown more rescue missions as the USA.


For the millionth time, the UN did not call America stingy. Someone from the UN made an unofficial statement saying that wealthy countries should be less stingy.

Is it really paranoid to suspect that USA might exploit a tragedy to further its imperial designs?

Yes. We are better than that, and we don't have imperialist designs. If we did, Canada would be the 51st state. It's not.

Some are worried that the US is using the Tsunami as an excuse to move into areas where they would never normally be allowed. For example in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, 13,000 American COMBAT troops have been dispatched there. Is it really paranoid to suspect that USA might exploit a tragedy to further its imperial designs?
We don't exactly keep a bunch of non-combat troops around to assuage paranoid muslims fears in situations like these.

Yes. We are better than that, and we don't have imperialist designs. If we did, Canada would be the 51st state. It's not.
nah, everyone would expect that, that and mexico, nah, we gotta go hafl way across the world and turn all the countries into israel, not money sinkholes that stay away from statehood because that means they would have to pay taxes instead of just tkaing shipments of money for being a protectorate, but countries that do whatever we say. canada is too big and obvious and stable

canada is definitally next...

some people say the US caused the tsunami in the first place

heh, that's just Skapadroe. I wouldn't define him as 'some people'.

nah, everyone would expect that, that and mexico, nah, we gotta go hafl way across the world and turn all the countries into israel, not money sinkholes that stay away from statehood because that means they would have to pay taxes instead of just tkaing shipments of money for being a protectorate, but countries that do whatever we say. canada is too big and obvious and stable

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that. I think it had something to do with Israel. Not sure, though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Some are worried that the US is using the Tsunami as an excuse to move into areas where they would never normally be allowed. For example in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, 13,000 American COMBAT troops have been dispatched there. Is it really paranoid to suspect that USA might exploit a tragedy to further its imperial designs?

some people say the US caused the tsunamis in the first place :headbang: :sniper:

some people say the US caused the tsunamis in the first place :headbang: :sniper:

I am glad that you fixed the quote and I feel obliged to once again inform you that it was just Skapadroe sayin that. I seriously doubt that it's a common opinion.

For the millionth time, the UN did not call America stingy. Someone from the UN made an unofficial statement saying that wealthy countries should be less stingy.

OK Chicken, I'll grant you that. He did say wealth nations. But "unofficial?" It was during a press conference that he said it. I would think that anything said during a press conference would have a sense of "officiality" (is that a word?) to it.

Reguardless of the statement, many of you here on the forum jumped on the "Bash the US Bandwagon" again because the first response was $35 Million and gee Pres. Bush never left his ranch in Texas. Well where was Koffii Annan when the disaster happened and where was he in the 2 days that followed? He was in Jackson Hole sking. The US upped it's pledge to $350 Million before Annan's ski lift ticket expired and he flew back to the UN HQ.

The point I'm making here, and thus far has been proved correct, is that the US can do no right in many of your eyes.

Either we are out to take over the world, or we just don't give a damn about anyone else.

Has Skapedroe posted anything recently? I kinda miss that guy...his posts were funny. I don't think he meant them to be, but they were.

OK Chicken, I'll grant you that. He did say wealth nations. But "unofficial?" It was during a press conference that he said it. I would think that anything said during a press conference would have a sense of "officiality" (is that a word?) to it.

Reguardless of the statement, many of you here on the forum jumped on the "Bash the US Bandwagon" again because the first response was $35 Million and gee Pres. Bush never left his ranch in Texas. Well where was Koffii Annan when the disaster happened and where was he in the 2 days that followed? He was in Jackson Hole sking. The US upped it's pledge to $350 Million before Annan's ski lift ticket expired and he flew back to the UN HQ.

The point I'm making here, and thus far has been proved correct, is that the US can do no right in many of your eyes.

Either we are out to take over the world, or we just don't give a damn about anyone else.

I should really be getting to bed, so I'll keep it short in an attempt to be coherent.

There is a lot of anti-US sentiment on this forum. However, there is also a great deal of anti-UN and anti-Europe sentiment as well. It kind of balances out.


By the way, Malkyer, Skapadroe just posted some stuff today.

canada is definitally next...

*cough*manifestdestinymonroedoctrine*cough*

By the way, Malkyer, Skapadroe just posted some stuff today.

Yeah, I just saw it a few minutes ago. The WMD thread.

i never liked their cheese anyway

*cough*manifestdestinymonroedoctrine*cough*

Manifest destiny was the idea that the US should spread across the continent, not up and down it.

Monroe Doctrine has nothing to do with imperialism. What it says is that (basically) we will stay out of European affairs if European countries stay out of ours. It also said that we would go to war with any nation that tries to set up new colonies in the Western Hemisphere.

Some are worried that the US is using the Tsunami as an excuse to move into areas where they would never normally be allowed. For example in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, 13,000 American COMBAT troops have been dispatched there. Is it really paranoid to suspect that USA might exploit a tragedy to further its imperial designs?
Yes, yes it is. Maybe we're just trying to do good for once.

*cough*manifestdestinymonroedoctrine*cough*
Monroe Doctrine was about keeping North and South American countries protected and free from European imperialists.

It was a sad attempt to whack Europe at the time, considering we were a weak nation saying we'll defend the entire western hemisphere....but it was a step in the right direction.

No way! America is the great Satan!

lol

Yes. We are better than that, and we don't have imperialist designs. If we did, Canada would be the 51st state. It's not.

Now why would the states need to annex Canada? We're already a junior partner in the U.S. empire. If the U.S. president whistles the Canadian pm bends over. This is true for at least the last 50 years. Lester B. Pearson argued against Viet Nam publicly but quietly approved massive arm sales to the U.S. Mulrooney and Chretien signed the FTA and NAFTA respectively. Martin is getting set to go along with the Ballistic Missile Defence, promoting the FTAA, participating in the occupation of Haiti, and actively undermining the Kyoto protocol, while refusing to link energy and water to other trade dispute (softwood lumber and beef).

So, why exactly would the states need to annex us? Just because we don't have Marines patrolling our streets doesn't mean we are any less a colony than Baghdad.

Oh, that list isn't meant to be exhaustive BTW, I'm sure many more historical examples of the PMO kissing US ass can be found by one who is so inclined.

Now why would the states need to annex Canada? We're already a junior partner in the U.S. empire. If the U.S. president whistles the Canadian pm bends over. This is true for at least the last 50 years. Lester B. Pearson argued against Viet Nam publicly but quietly approved massive arm sales to the U.S. Mulrooney and Chretien signed the FTA and NAFTA respectively. Martin is getting set to go along with the Ballistic Missile Defence, promoting the FTAA, participating in the occupation of Haiti, and actively undermining the Kyoto protocol, while refusing to link energy and water to other trade dispute (softwood lumber and beef).

So, why exactly would the states need to annex us? Just because we don't have Marines patrolling our streets doesn't mean we are any less a colony than Baghdad.

Point #1. Iraq is not a colony.
Point #2. Canada is fully independent. If you weren't, why would you have socialized healthcare and French as a national language.
Point #3. I was kidding about the french part.

Of course, I can find more stuff, but I'm tired now so I'll do it later.

Point #1. Iraq is not a colony.
Point #2. Canada is fully independent. If you weren't, why would you have socialized healthcare and French as a national language.
Point #3. I was kidding about the french part.

Of course, I can find more stuff, but I'm tired now so I'll do it later.

It's interesting that you assert that Iraq isn't a colony, care to justify that claim?

Completely sovereign? I'm going to assume that you mean we are
a)completely independant in our decision making, b)not subject to reward and punishment by the States for decisions that they disapprove of.

Well for a) we can compare public statements of Canadian gov't officials and the actual actions they take: I'll refer to Iraq and Haiti. PM Chretien publicly claimed that we wouldn't participate in the invasion of Iraq, whoever he then authorised 2000 Canadian troops to go to Afghanistan so that US troops could be redirected to Iraq, we also sent along 4 destroyers as part of U.S. Naval Battle Groups into the Gulf and permitted Canadian companies to ship armaments to the tune of $500m (CND) to the US. for b) Canada publicly espouses respect for other nations sovereignty and yet participated (along with France) with the US engineered ouster of the democratically elected Haitian president Aristide, furthermore Canada is also helping to block Aristides party Lavalas from running in the upcoming demonstration election. Somewhat disrespectful wouldn't you say? Also in perfect keeping w/ U.S. foreign policy.

The United States does not control Canada. All politicians say one thing and do another. The US is the major market for Canadian goods, that's why they don't do things to piss off America, or they'll lose money. And for Aristide, that was UN-sanctioned. We were just fulfilling our duty by ousting the "democratically elected" Aristide.

The United States does not control Canada. All politicians say one thing and do another. The US is the major market for Canadian goods, that's why they don't do things to piss off America, or they'll lose money. And for Aristide, that was UN-sanctioned. We were just fulfilling our duty by ousting the "democratically elected" Aristide.


Care to respond to the specific points I made in my post, or are you going to just make sweeping generalizations without anything to back them up?

Now why would the states need to annex Canada? We're already a junior partner in the U.S. empire. If the U.S. president whistles the Canadian pm bends over. This is true for at least the last 50 years. Lester B. Pearson argued against Viet Nam publicly but quietly approved massive arm sales to the U.S. Mulrooney and Chretien signed the FTA and NAFTA respectively.

Wow. So massive trade surpluses for Canada = imperialist colony. How novel - back in the days of Rome empires took wealth from their vassals.

America is a reverse empire. They create wealth and give it to other nations through charity. (and investment if you count that) They maintain armies, and used them to defend the world from the Nazis, the Communists, and now to liberate Afganis and Iraqis. (sure, it was motivated by their own interests in some cases. Isn't in nice to have people who find it in their own interest to liberate the oppressed)

...and actively undermining the Kyoto protocol, while refusing to link energy and water to other trade dispute (softwood lumber and beef)....

Yeah the trade disputes suck. Apparently we have some tariffs of our own, so I'm reluctant to jump on the unfair tariff bandwagon. And still the trade surplus.

It was estimated that following Kyoto would cost Canada 300,000+ jobs. So we signed it and did nothing. (We are Liberal, after all) From what I've heard, Canada's environmental policies are less effective than American ones. That's from Canadians who are taking environmental classes in University. They're jealous.

There are better ways than signing something we cannot reasonably accomplish. Maybe if we all didn't expect the government to do it for us Canadians would take some responsibility and do something about it all.

Check out www.iraqthemodel.com

Its a blog by two Iraqis. Not only do they present an alternate view from the mainstream media who are slaves to impact and sensation (and possibly bias) they are some of the imperialized Iraqis you talk about. Here's part of one entry:

If the Army had an adopt-a-child program, Logan would be the poster child. For more than a year, the 13-year-old boy, who contends he’s 13 and a half, has lived and worked with Coalition forces at a forward operating base in Mosul. The boy speaks four languages and his official title at the FOB is translator and supervisor, but he is a Soldier at heart.
“I love American Soldiers. I want to help them in every way possible, because without them we (Iraqis) would have nothing,” said Logan, who also speaks Turkish, Arabic and Kurdish and is currently learning Spanish. “When Saddam ruled Iraq, he would kill somebody for speaking English or Kurdish. Things were very bad, but now we are much happier and I can speak all my languages freely.”

The comments to their posts run into the hundreds. They also have links to 23 other iraqi blogs.

Wow. So massive trade surpluses for Canada = imperialist colony. How novel - back in the days of Rome empires took wealth from their vassals.

Oh, and many of the profits that flow up north of the border go straight into the pockets of U.S. owned companies. The US freely violates NAFTA rules, and even NAFTA is a cruel joke. Canada can never, ever reduce our shipments of hydrocarbon fuel to the states, even in the case of an emergency up here. So, completely free and soveriegn? I don't think so.

Oh, and many of the profits that flow up north of the border go straight into the pockets of U.S. owned companies.

I don't see the relavancy, especially since those companies employ Canadians. BTW the U.S. doesn't own them. A little general too - how much of those profits, and what is done with them? (my guess is they are mostly invested into Canada. If they are able to make profits here, then it only makes sense that they would expand businesses here)

The US freely violates NAFTA rules, and even NAFTA is a cruel joke. Canada can never, ever reduce our shipments of hydrocarbon fuel to the states, even in the case of an emergency up here. So, free and soveriegn? I don't think so.

Generalization, Generalization... well I haven't heard of the hydrocarbon bit.

Here's my quick source: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/assess_nafta/energy.html

Ok... well first of all that goes both ways, so I guess the U.S. isn't soveriegn either. Second, if NAFTA is bad for us, then its our fault for entering into it and for allowing it to continue. We can stop it. This is a democracy right?

edit: We can reduce shipments, but not below the average for the previous 36 months.

On the origional topic: check out a Powerline entry for Jan 12 called "A First-Hand Account From Sumatra". Fascinating and powerful. (www.powerlineblog.com)