I think not said:
twotoques said:
As a matter of fact, according to a news report I heard today, a majority of Canadians do not think that Canadian armed forces should be fighting in Afghanistan.
Oh, so when a NATO ally is attacked, the position should be not to help, is that right? And you are proud of this, how? If the shoe was on the other foot, how do you think you would react?
I don't think I said anything about not helping a NATO ally. I must be getting forgetful. Or you're reading things that I didn't write.
So when did Afghanistan attack a NATO ally?
Did I say I was proud of this? I may or I may not be proud of it, but don't put words in my mouth. I stated what I heard on a news report today and my opinion on the differences between american & Canadian attitudes about "fixing" the problems of other countries.
twotoques said:
Last report I heard, the majority of American citizens still supports having US armed forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes that's correct, leave a civil war behind?
How long do you think we should stay. 10 years? 50? 100?
Tribes have been fighting each other in that area for thousands of years. The only time they occasionally unite is to fight against invaders and occupiers. Just like Vietnam, they'll never stop fighting us until we leave. All we're doing there is recruiting more lunatic bombers.
We went there. We killed a bunch of people. We can't force democracy on them. We can't stay forever.
The warlords were fighting before we got there. They'll be fighting when we leave. Anybody who thinks different is on drugs.
If we leave, instead of killing us, they'll go back to killing each other. Which is better?
twotoques said:
You should consider that before you start chewing on Canadians. Some of you might want to put yourself on the same level as Americans, but you don't speak for me.
Well when you get off your horse, let us know so we can converse.
Horse? If I disagree with you, I'm on a horse? Don't hold your breath. I think I like it up here.
twotoques said:
Canadians, these days, generally have a different attitude about how to fix world problems then the majority of Americans.
Cortez can't speak for you but you can speak on behlaf of Americans? Interesting.
Right. Cortez can't speak for me.
When did I speak on behalf of Americans? I watch the news. I hear American media claim that the majority of American citizens support the war in Iraq. If the American media isn't reporting the truth, I'm not in any position to change that.
twotoques said:
Maybe we're no better at fixing them then the US, but we aren't as ready to use violence to solve problems. That's a fact.
Agreed.
twotoques said:
Canadians, in the majority, don't support interfering with, or overthrowing, governments of other countries because we don't agree with their politics.
Which politics? Gassing Kurds? Bombing airlines?
Was Saddam not an ally of the US at the time he was killing people with gas?
Anyway, some of the incidents I was referring to were Allende in Chile, support for the dictatorship of the Shah of Iran, the unsuccesful coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, support for the corrupt government of South Vietnam, support for any number of South & Central American right-wing dictators. These are just a few examples of the US meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
And although Canada may have benefited sometimes from these situations, I'm confident that the majority of Canadians would not have appreciated the Canadian government actively interfering in their politcs by supporting death squads or assassins.
twotoques said:
As I said, Canadians are much less likely to use violence, therefore that does give us some room to question those who are so inclined.
That's also referred to as backseat politics
Is it? Well, it's the same kind of politics that is done by a lot of countries whose governments don't want to use war and death squads to change the world. I think it's natural to ask questions if you see someone about to use violence when it may not be necessary. Or even if it is necessary.
twotoques said:
The rest of the world thinks this is true also. If you need proof, ask American tourists why some of them wear Canadian flags on their backpacks when they travel.
A myth. Do yourself a favor and stop looking foolish. Canadians run around with little flag patches on their luggage.
Oh well. Another American anecdote. I work with tourists in the summer. I heard that story from Americans. Because I asked an American hiker why he had the red maple leaf on his backpack.
I guess if I stop believing what Americans say, I won't look so foolish.
twotoques said:
We're far from perfect world citizens, but trying to compare our meddling in world affairs to that of the US is ridiculous.
Really? Funny how there was an uproar in Canada when the US government refused to give reconstruction contracts to Canadian companies. No risk, no benefits.
Hm. I'm trying to figure out what one thing has to do with the other.
Anyway, there was some noise (I wouldn't class it an uproar) from a few business types and opposition politicians who wanted to profit from the war and the media tried to make a big deal out of it. Most Canadians didn't really care. It was expected.
I'm assuming that most Canadians didn't care because the only mention I heard was in the media. No regular people talked about it that I ever heard.
Even those countries that did help in the invasion got screwed, didn't they?
twotoques said:
Only a Canadian would try to do that. Chileans, Iranians, Vietnamese, among others, would shake their heads in wonder at your foolishness.
But I bet, Koreans, Serbs and Haitians have something else to say about that.
Korea was 50 years ago. Things are different in this country now.
I think the majority of Canadians agreed with going to Serbia because it was another NATO affair and we believed the stories about ethnic cleansing. Apparently the stories were true, if it's true that they're still finding mass graves there. I don't know why you're mentioning that war. World War 2 started in that area. I suppose a lot of people were afraid the little war would turn into something bigger. Seems like a good enough reason to me.
Haiti? What about Haiti? We send a few cops and soldiers down there. Doesn't look like they're doing any good, so they'll probably come back soon. I hear rumours that Canada, France, US, and others were involved in the overthrow of Aristide, but if Canada was involved I seriously doubt that Canadian people would have approved. But I haven't heard of any real evidence of that. Just Aristide throwing crap into the fan. And it looks like he'll be back soon anyway. And they can get back to killing each other. These people, like Afghanis, have to learn how to do democracy. We can't force it on them.
twotoques said:
Of course, if we start getting involved in all the little wars around the world, a maple leaf might (like the stars & stripes) become a bullseye instead of a shield.
Very likely. More backseat politics.
Better then shooting and getting shot at.
