Canada, U.S. ARCADE WARS

[ArcadeFire]

A good argument is based on being realistic, backing up facts with references, having some manners and respect. When a troll mentailty comes into it, thats the end of story.

I have given facts and links to websites for people do do their own research to see if my claims are true. If you'd like to discuss those then maybe READ THEM. As for manners I will treat people as they treat me and if you call me a wanker I'll call you one too.

 

[Yrys]

for people do do their own research to see if my claims are true

It's not what's has been asking of you. Your refusal to conform to demand will have you banned from this website
one day.  A web site that you seem to like enough to pass a lot of time on...

As from your links in this thread, they aren't going to prouve anything FOR you. YOU have to prouve it with more valids one...

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d&k=14984
http://www.gov.mb.ca/throne.html
http://www.destinationwinnipeg.ca/98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.asp

Édith : I took the links out of quotations marks, they are more visible that way...

 

[PMedMoe]

Yes, and Ron Paul wants to do just that. If you feel the need to smoke, go ahead...if you wanna ride without a helmet-it's your risk- same goes for drugs....you do them you pay the price. I don't see where there's a problem with this? It's called individual freedom.

But as an Ob/Gyn he's a pro-lifer?  What about pro-choice?  Isn't that individual "freedom" too?

Of course they still send you guys to Afghanistan and that's dangerous too.

So is breathing...... :

 

[helpup]

Arcade now where in my post did I mention anything about "foreign power has the interest of Canadians".  I was just making some observations that people are taking this agreement and blowing it out of proportion.  We already have numerous deals with the US and other countries for security, trade, information sharing, power sharing, and so on.  If what I am saying comes across as a generalization it is my attempt at letting people understand it in the simplest terms.  

As for other countries eyeing what we have in Canada and wanting it.  Sure I have no doubt there is.  Are we loosing things to these "foreign powers", I have no doubt that we are loosing more then we are gaining in some aspects.  It is called a Global Market for a reason.  

As for being naive, that is a laugh that you are making that assumption about me or anyone in general.  But lets look at that.  How does someone who is in the military being naive scare you?  We are at the lowest levels responsible to be trained to carry out our job, apply our skills in direction of our Superiors who take their marching orders from Ottawa.  At the higher levels ( as in regional and National ) they can and do plan for differant scenarios.  In order to anticipate the direction that the CF may have to take.  Still all that depends on marching orders from Civilian leaders.  So if your scared hearing about "naivety" from rank and file serving/ retired CF members then you really do need to invest in some counseling, although I am not sure there is a Phobia that would label it accurately.  

And not supprising you missed the point of my post/ rant.  Please show me where in history the US or any other Democracy has invaded another Democracy to gain that nations wealth, mineral, resources.  And do you not think there would be major repercussions to any country that tried.  The closest example I can come up with off the top of my head is the Turbot war.  and in the end that was settled through established diplomacy/trade talks/world courts.  I will grant that at times we can and do "give" our resources in a way it may bite us in the butt at some point.  Yet that can and will be a changing situation that will depend on the market and political reality that can and will evolve with time.  

In the end we are the US's largest trading partner.  We are apart of a North American trade partnership for the most part those things are beneficial to all involved.  Being a "hyperpower" the US tends to be viewed at this mad man playing a real life game of Risk with the resources instead of points for each country.  I just don't buy into that line of thought.  Is some of their dealings self serving.  Sure they are that is the nature of the beast of being Human.  But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic.  really this naive service member wants to know.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

same goes for drugs....you do them you pay the price.

Wow, you just proved that you do not have a clue about the real world.................I don't know who you are, or what you do, but if you think the above statement is even remotely true then you must still be in Mommy's basement.

I know I thought like that while I was......

 

[helpup]

Well this thread has been a tad off topic and no Arcade you didn't answer any of my questions.  I will forget the rest but bring back the big one that was asked in response to your thoughts on the original topic.

Question:  "But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic?"

 

[George Wallace]

Honestly...how are any of those statements radical? People smoke everyday...I believe there are still states in the US where you don't need a helmet to ride. If it was up to me,  I would only wear a helmet for long rides or city riding and that would be my own risk. People go skydiving, are they radicals too? Don't they have an airborne unit? Taking risks should be up to the individual not the Government Nanny state. Do you think the Governemnt should be invading every aspect of our lives? I don't.

I think you need to give this a little more thought.  The Government, which you and I elect to run this country in our best interests, are being frugally responsible financial planners.  Unless your examples are all fatalities, these people put a strain on our Health Care System.  A Health Care System that is a financial strain on all us Taxpayers. 

If you think the Government plans to stop smoking and heavily tax cigarettes is an infringement on your freedoms, then ask yourself how many dollars we spend on treating Cancer victims of cigarette smoke.  Your freedoms are not infringed upon by "regulation".  Your freedoms are infringed upon by lack of "regulation" and chaos.

Now with this later comment:

I have given facts and links to websites for people do do their own research to see if my claims are true. If you'd like to discuss those then maybe READ THEM. As for manners I will treat people as they treat me and if you call me a wanker I'll call you one too.

Now I am positive that you have been here before, and BANNED.

 

[ArcadeFire]

Well this thread has been a tad off topic and no Arcade you didn't answer any of my questions.  I will forget the rest but bring back the big one that was asked in response to your thoughts on the original topic.

Question:  "But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic?"

LOL. How can you separate information warfare with "boots on the  ground" ? War is war whether conducted covertly or overtly.

Here are some lists for you....starting with Democracies the US directly subverted.....

- Syria Hosni Al-Zaim coup sponsored by the US in 1949
- The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
- Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963

And how about the other side of the coin? Is it not the same thing morally to support a Dictator as to overthrow a Democracy?That one would be a big list.....shall we begin...

- China and Chinese torture
- Pakistan Musharraf
- Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s
- Egypt Sadat Mubarak 1978-today
- Iraq Saddam Hussein
- Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979
- Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout
- Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970- 
- Saudi Arabia Saud family 
- Kuwait a monarchy 
- Morocco 
- Tunisia 
- Algeria 
- Jordan 
- Panama Noriega was US-supported for years  before they grew tired of him 
- Nepal monarchy since 1948
- Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro
- Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support  1965-67

They must have been "bad democracies". The fact is the US does what the US wants to increase its power regardless of whether it's dealing with a Democracy or not. If it's a democracy, then they do so covertly without boots on the ground since that would be too obviously hypocritical. People need to stop being so Naive about the nature of the US Foreign policy.

 

[ArcadeFire]

If you think the Government plans to stop smoking and heavily tax cigarettes is an infringement on your freedoms, then ask yourself how many dollars we spend on treating Cancer victims of cigarette smoke.  Your freedoms are not infringed upon by "regulation".  Your freedoms are infringed upon by lack of "regulation" and chaos.

Yes it is an infringement on my freedoms. Taxation does nothing to stop smoking it only gives the Government more of my money to waste. See I'm a conservative and believe that more money to the Government leaves less for me to use wisely. The idea of higher taxes on cirgarettes is a joke like fuel tax and most other taxation. And how can you say that someone's freedoms are never infringed upon by legislation? Are you serious? What if they introduce something like they have in the US where I can be arrested on pure speculation and sent to a random site for "waterboarding" without habeus corpus? Oh yeah, harmless legislation....

 

[helpup]

LOL. How can you separate information warfare with "boots on the ground" ? War is war whether conducted covertly or overtly.

Here are some lists for you....starting with Democracies the US directly subverted.....

- Syria Hosni Al-Zaim coup sponsored by the US in 1949
- The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
- Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963

And how about the other side of the coin? Is it not the same thing morally to support a Dictator as to overthrow a Democracy?That one would be a big list.....shall we begin...

- China and Chinese torture
- Pakistan Musharraf
- Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s
- Egypt Sadat Mubarak 1978-today
- Iraq Saddam Hussein
- Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979
- Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout
- Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-   
- Saudi Arabia Saud family 
- Kuwait a monarchy 
- Morocco   
- Tunisia   
- Algeria   
- Jordan   
- Panama Noriega was US-supported for years  before they grew tired of him 
- Nepal monarchy since 1948
- Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro
- Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support  1965-67

They must have been "bad democracies". The fact is the US does what the US wants to increase its power regardless of whether it's dealing with a Democracy or not. If it's a democracy, then they do so covertly without boots on the ground since that would be too obviously hypocritical. People need to stop being so Naive about the nature of the US Foreign policy.

You CAN separate war from the actions you are talking about.  No strike that other people can you obviously cant.  Nor can you keep this on track.  The original question or thread direction had to deal with the problems about the treaty allowing both countries to have soldiers in a emergency to go and assist.  Your assertion if I followed it correctly was it would be scary to do as what if the US, invented a problem to come into Canada and did not want to leave.  This of course is to facilitate their take over of some Canadian resource through a military means.  Since that was the scenario this thread is suppose to follow I asked.  "But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic?"  Now of course even clarifying my question to leave out the " subversion " by America of other " Democracies" You predictably chose not to and listed the above.

- Syria Hosni Al-Zaim coup sponsored by the US in 1949 
- The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
- Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963

According to you these are Democracies???????
Nice to see the world you live in.

 

[ArcadeFire]

 
- The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
- Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963

According to you these are Democracies???????
Nice to see the world you live in.

Are you paying attention?

These coups were sponsored by the US AGAINST democracies. Obviously the regime's that took over are not democratic- that's my point.

Okay back to the topic now. You are taking a leap to say from my argument that the US is going to outright "attack" Canada- I never stated this you got that from your own head. Therefore your next question about boots on the ground and overthrowing democracies has nothing to do with my argument. I disagree with your statement that there is any difference between an open war with boots on the ground and one without. Please explain to me the difference since the goals are the same. What's the fuggin' difference? If I use US soldiers or Iranian revolutionaries what's the difference if I'm overthrowing a Democratic regime? There is no difference! I would really love to hear you argue your point here because I just don't see it. My idea was that the US could use this agreement to pre-emptively help us by "protecting" our (their) vital oil/water/mineral interests here with the use of some conjured up terrorist threat or false flag event. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Never happened; no shots fired and there you have it! Vietnam! Our lackluster US bum licking politicians would jump at the chance to have US troops on our soil in the event of any emergency or nominal threat. We already let them go unchallenged in the Artic through "our" northern backdoor and release our untold wealth to them via large multinational resource companies. They know they could have our resources anytime they want- our politicians know this; everyone knows this. Right now there is really no need for them to cause trouble because we sell them what they want and half the companies are US based anyway. But imagine we start selling more to China, or nationalize our Oil and resource companies for security reasons (something we really should do) or sell more elsewhere once oil is a bit tighter in supply and demand? The moment US politicians sense the flow going somewhere else you better believe that they'll come up with something. They have this new pre-emptive strike doctrine I'm sure you've heard of. Well it's not about who is a threat to them from a military or terrorist standpoint; but who threatens their resources. If you believe it's about liberation I have nice cabin on lake salt flats for you.

This is all just an intellectual exercise of course. I don't know if it will happen- but it could. I expect people who are thinking about our security would also be thinking about alterior motives when signing  treaties with large, powerful and proven resource grabbing neighbors. My conclusion was that this agreement is just another step paving the way for the corporate elite of North America to envelop Mexico the US and Canada under a North American Union type affair like the European one to exploit, exploit, exploit. People as a resource and resources themselves; it's just one big game of exploitation for the benefit of a few.

In a couple years from now we will know more as the plan is still unfolding but I reserve the right to come back and say "I told you so" should a North American Union become a topic of public discussion. Or, if you'd like, you can just make a mental note now that this guy Arcade Fire was talking about a North American Union years ago..and save me the trouble.

 

[1feral1]

Now Anti US rhetoric.

You are so predictable.

Good Gawd!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

"Spinning wheel gotta go round" (apologies to BS&T). So here we are right back to the US bashing. That's what I've been waiting for.

After running the gambit of topic(s) so far off the thread topic, and back to the same. There's nothing else to add here. The potential was gone somewhere around page two. No more bandwith to this one.

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff