What's your opinion on United States Of America?
- Thread starter sombraa110
- Start date
You're wrong. I have been in the US 24 months now and day to day is no different than living in Canada except street names and store chain names.
And Canadians are not more grounded in reality: we have a heavily inflated sense of who we are in the world. We are a small country, with a lot of land and resources but we don't have a lot of influence because for the most part, the only people that need what we have are the Americans, and they outmass us 10:1. The reality is the US economy is what drives us, and their foreign policy affects what happens to us, while the reverse isn't true.
Now many Americans don't realize the impact they have on other countries but by the same token, people in most big cities don't have an idea of what their actions have on their hinterlands either, so its not like they suffer from a unique psychosis.
People on the American left claim this and I admit I don't like some of the provisions of the Patriot Act and the way they erode personal freedoms, but you have to be wary about making comments or "jokes" about the Taliban in Canadian airports too. Sorry to burst your bubble. Its been a criminal code offense in Canada to make "bomb jokes" sense long before 9/11.
And I was sorry to see that Ann Coulture got a warning to watch what she said in Canada as she may face criminal charges as the Laws of Free Speech in Canada are not like they are in the US.
Another Proxy for Imperial Preemption
John Glaser, June 25,
As has been reported and discussed at length here at Antiwar.com, the national security establishment, in conjunction with the Obama administration and surely whatever succeeds it, is planning on an essentially permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Secret negotiations leaked to the Guardian revealed U.S. plans to remain for decades under a broad security agreement. This was corroborated by Hamid Karzai who spoke publicly about a U.S. presence long after the 2014 date of “full withdrawal.” And now after Obama’s announcement of a minor, gradual, and incomplete draw-down, military leaders are complaining it was too drastic. These are relatively clear signs.
But one fundamental motivation behind the American strategy to maintain a military capacity in Afghanistan is to fight proxy wars with Pakistan. A podcast with New Yorker staff writers Steve Coll and Dexter Filkins provided some fresh analysis:
Proxy wars are practically a pastime in American foreign policy. From our bases and troops in South Korea, to our NATO deployments throughout Europe, to our base in Honduras while we terrorized Nicaragua in the Contra war, to bases in Saudi Arabia, to fight the Gulf War and in Kuwait to fight Gulf War 2, to Uzbekistan in the early 2000′s, just north of Afghanistan when Afghanistan itself was a bigger priority. Proxies are an important part of imperial policy; they assist in controlling the world and dominating states from many strategic places, as opposed to simply from Washington.
This in part explains U.S. negotiations with the Taliban, which have been rather counter-intuitive for the American public. The U.S. doesn’t care if the brutal, extremist Taliban have control over various provinces in Afghanistan; we don’t mind the backwardness and harshness with which they rule (contrary to rhetoric). So long as any Afghan government is subservient to U.S. wishes to maintain permanent military capacity, the U.S. is happy.
Another Proxy for Imperial Preemption « Antiwar.com Blog
any doubts or factual evidence that would oppose the above??? A no brainer as to the USG motivations.
John Glaser, June 25,
As has been reported and discussed at length here at Antiwar.com, the national security establishment, in conjunction with the Obama administration and surely whatever succeeds it, is planning on an essentially permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Secret negotiations leaked to the Guardian revealed U.S. plans to remain for decades under a broad security agreement. This was corroborated by Hamid Karzai who spoke publicly about a U.S. presence long after the 2014 date of “full withdrawal.” And now after Obama’s announcement of a minor, gradual, and incomplete draw-down, military leaders are complaining it was too drastic. These are relatively clear signs.
But one fundamental motivation behind the American strategy to maintain a military capacity in Afghanistan is to fight proxy wars with Pakistan. A podcast with New Yorker staff writers Steve Coll and Dexter Filkins provided some fresh analysis:
Steve Coll: I do think the endgame that they’re headed toward, the one they’re planning for anyway, their hope, for American deployments and strategy in Afghanistan after the troop withdrawal is completed in 2014 is rooted basically in retaining a counter-terrorism capacity in Afghanistan, one that would be rooted, the hope is, in adequate Afghan political institutions and security forces. But the American purpose, besides maintaining some good enough Afghan stability, the American purpose would be to maintain a strike capability to go into Pakistan, in particular, when necessary, so that if an opportunity like the one that presented itself in Abbottabad were to resurface, or if Pakistan were to fall further apart and present international threats out of the [sic] of its continuing civil conflicts, that the United States would be close enough to do something about it militarily.
Much of the realist analysis about how the Obama administration is pursuing a military campaign, engaging in a war, that does not present a clear and present danger to the American people or interests may be missing the point. The Obama administration is likely to have a full understanding of the fact that, in isolation, our war in Afghanistan is wasteful and unnecessary. But to be able to use Afghanistan as a proxy in any potential fight or singular operation in Pakistan, may just be worth impoverishing ourselves, letting die Americans in uniform, and continuing to wreak insufferable terror on the Afghan people.
Proxy wars are practically a pastime in American foreign policy. From our bases and troops in South Korea, to our NATO deployments throughout Europe, to our base in Honduras while we terrorized Nicaragua in the Contra war, to bases in Saudi Arabia, to fight the Gulf War and in Kuwait to fight Gulf War 2, to Uzbekistan in the early 2000′s, just north of Afghanistan when Afghanistan itself was a bigger priority. Proxies are an important part of imperial policy; they assist in controlling the world and dominating states from many strategic places, as opposed to simply from Washington.
This in part explains U.S. negotiations with the Taliban, which have been rather counter-intuitive for the American public. The U.S. doesn’t care if the brutal, extremist Taliban have control over various provinces in Afghanistan; we don’t mind the backwardness and harshness with which they rule (contrary to rhetoric). So long as any Afghan government is subservient to U.S. wishes to maintain permanent military capacity, the U.S. is happy.
Another Proxy for Imperial Preemption « Antiwar.com Blog
any doubts or factual evidence that would oppose the above??? A no brainer as to the USG motivations.
Well, I'll go along with 80%- people in N. European countries tend to outlive Americans (but they don't have so many Yucky Ronnies and Sloppy Wendys).
''Social programs... bloated government work force... unsustainable pensions.
That's socialism.''
In the USA it's corporate socialism that's the problem - bloated Pentagon, welfare bailouts for the rich bankers, and $20 trillion sheltered overseas. No wonder we're broke!
That's socialism.''
In the USA it's corporate socialism that's the problem - bloated Pentagon, welfare bailouts for the rich bankers, and $20 trillion sheltered overseas. No wonder we're broke!
http://bearcanada.com/fae/usa/usforcesabroad.pdf
Instances of Use of US armed forces abroad: 1798-2010
.......when condensed into a report like that........it is mindboggling to see just what a war / militant nation the US is. While pretending to be 'humanitarian" with respect for human rights . And it is the first to holler "hypocrit " at others.
time to look in the mirror.
hey gopher. Good to see ya. again.
IF "don't shoot at us " is a qualification for being a good neighbor.......we are in trouble.
Sweden, Switzerland are but a few that would make nice neighbors. They don't start wars , are progressive , know what diplomatic measures truly mean and are humanitarian. Plus the people themselves are really nice , polite , tactful and caring. Most of all they are not power greedy to the point they bully everyone they come in contact with ......unless they want something from them.
Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed US Ship
by Stephen Zunes, July 02, 2011
The Obama administration appears to have given a green light to an Israeli attack on an unarmed flotilla carrying peace and human rights activists — including a vessel with 50 Americans on board — bound for the besieged Gaza Strip. At a press conference on June 24, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Campaign by saying it would "provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."
Clinton did not explain why a country had “the right to defend themselves” against ships which are clearly no threat. Not only have organizers of the flotilla gone to great steps to ensure there are no weapons on board, the only cargo bound for Gaza on the U.S. ship are letters of solidarity to the Palestinians in that besieged enclave who have suffered under devastating Israeli bombardments, a crippling blockade, and an oppressive Islamist government. Nor did Clinton explain why the State Department suddenly considers the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the port of Gaza to be “Israeli waters,” when the entire international community recognizes Israeli territorial waters as being well to the northeast of the ships’ intended route.
Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed US Ship by Stephen Zunes -- Antiwar.com
seems that the arrogance of the USG has gone so far as to adopt attitude of not having to explain its inhumane decisions.
These americans on the ship are being humanitarian.......and more power to them. Yet they too become a target for "assassination" for pollitical reasons. Shame on the USG. (again)
Instances of Use of US armed forces abroad: 1798-2010
.......when condensed into a report like that........it is mindboggling to see just what a war / militant nation the US is. While pretending to be 'humanitarian" with respect for human rights . And it is the first to holler "hypocrit " at others.
time to look in the mirror.
hey gopher. Good to see ya. again.
IF "don't shoot at us " is a qualification for being a good neighbor.......we are in trouble.
Sweden, Switzerland are but a few that would make nice neighbors. They don't start wars , are progressive , know what diplomatic measures truly mean and are humanitarian. Plus the people themselves are really nice , polite , tactful and caring. Most of all they are not power greedy to the point they bully everyone they come in contact with ......unless they want something from them.
Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed US Ship
by Stephen Zunes, July 02, 2011
The Obama administration appears to have given a green light to an Israeli attack on an unarmed flotilla carrying peace and human rights activists — including a vessel with 50 Americans on board — bound for the besieged Gaza Strip. At a press conference on June 24, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Campaign by saying it would "provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."
Clinton did not explain why a country had “the right to defend themselves” against ships which are clearly no threat. Not only have organizers of the flotilla gone to great steps to ensure there are no weapons on board, the only cargo bound for Gaza on the U.S. ship are letters of solidarity to the Palestinians in that besieged enclave who have suffered under devastating Israeli bombardments, a crippling blockade, and an oppressive Islamist government. Nor did Clinton explain why the State Department suddenly considers the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the port of Gaza to be “Israeli waters,” when the entire international community recognizes Israeli territorial waters as being well to the northeast of the ships’ intended route.
Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed US Ship by Stephen Zunes -- Antiwar.com
seems that the arrogance of the USG has gone so far as to adopt attitude of not having to explain its inhumane decisions.
These americans on the ship are being humanitarian.......and more power to them. Yet they too become a target for "assassination" for pollitical reasons. Shame on the USG. (again)
Wpw........and now it is SIX countries that the US is "intervening" in militarily. Does this have an end??? As if Somalila has the tools to attack the US. This is complete insanity. ......irrational.
US Expands Drone War
Brian Beyer, June 30, 2011
The United States has now expanded its (c)overt drone war to a 6th country: Somalia. Naturally, the justification was that if America just sat back and did nothing, al-Shabab, a Somali terrorist group, would attack the United States:
Of course, due to America’s policy of ambiguity, it isn’t known for certain whether or not this was the first strike of America’s drone war on Somalia. Civilians and militants alike reported seeing or hearing multiple airstrikes and other attacks using military helicopters.
US Expands Drone War « Antiwar.com Blog
US Expands Drone War
Brian Beyer, June 30, 2011
The United States has now expanded its (c)overt drone war to a 6th country: Somalia. Naturally, the justification was that if America just sat back and did nothing, al-Shabab, a Somali terrorist group, would attack the United States:
“As the al-Qaeda core has weakened under our unyielding pressure, it has looked increasingly to these other groups and individuals to take up its cause, including its goal of striking the United States,” said Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser. “From the territory it controls in Somalia,” he said, “al-Shabab continues to call for strikes against the United States.”
Of course, due to America’s policy of ambiguity, it isn’t known for certain whether or not this was the first strike of America’s drone war on Somalia. Civilians and militants alike reported seeing or hearing multiple airstrikes and other attacks using military helicopters.
US Expands Drone War « Antiwar.com Blog
Holy Crap guys....wow.....
I give a Thumbs up if I agree strongly with a post, or it makes me laugh. If I blow
coffee out'a my nose while drinking & laughing after reading a post, it's going to
get a thumbs up for sure.
I don't think I've even intentionally given anyone a thumbs down. Maybe by accident
at some point....but that's about it.
Anyway, none of this in the last handfull of posts, including mine, has anything at all
to do with the subject of this Thread. Please stear back to the Topic in the O.P.
I've moved some of the Off Topic Thumbs Down stuff to it's own Thread in the Members
Lounge area here: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/members-lounge/100740-some-off-topic-sniveln-bout.html
I give a Thumbs up if I agree strongly with a post, or it makes me laugh. If I blow
coffee out'a my nose while drinking & laughing after reading a post, it's going to
get a thumbs up for sure.
I don't think I've even intentionally given anyone a thumbs down. Maybe by accident
at some point....but that's about it.
Anyway, none of this in the last handfull of posts, including mine, has anything at all
to do with the subject of this Thread. Please stear back to the Topic in the O.P.
I've moved some of the Off Topic Thumbs Down stuff to it's own Thread in the Members
Lounge area here: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/members-lounge/100740-some-off-topic-sniveln-bout.html
Ron in Regina; [SIZE=3 said:
Do you think there is anything new that could possibly be added to this thread, Ron? :lol:
Kudos on this year's citrus crops. I had the most amazing grapefruit with my Sunny Boy gruel this morn.
WTG!
WTG!
That warning was from the University I believe, not any government agency, from what I recall. Speech should not be stifled in any manner in my opinion. I listened to a Muslim converter at Yonge & Dundas (Toronto) the other day blabbering on how if women wore the hijab, they were 90% less likely to be raped. That comment just worked me up, how exactly does he come up with these statistics? Anyways, he had a lot of people telling him where to stuff it.
why, were you hoping that nobody would say anything and the dumb bitch would open that cavernous hole in her face and promptly get arrested for hate speech? I would have loved to have seen that. It would have been sooooooo cool.
she is a genuine piece of toxicity. and a total waste of space. Her high profile once again demonstrates the US image that some of the loudest and most aggressive mouth pieces present to the media and thus to the world. WHat is "curious" is that they develop a "following" so easily. Not sure she is the national treasure she believes she is.