Very interesting national poll results from Canada... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #16 09-08-2002, 01:37 PM

blackmercedes,

Thank you for having a sane perspective, and eyes open to the obvious.

Jason,

You absolutely have the right to question your government. You also have a right to be wrong. That's the beauty of our FREE western civilization.

Mike

suginami · #17 09-08-2002, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Sudan went to the UN to start a inquiry that was blocked by Washington. This plant produced 50% of medicines for Sudan. It produced medicine that immunized children against diseases that are easily treated. The main victims from this bombing were essentially children. It was the main producer for TB drugs for over 100,000 people in that country. The death toll from that bombing is still adding up as time goes on.

Jason, you place more credibility in Sudan than in the U.S.

Sudan is a country that has been in a civil war for so long that it hasn't had a functioning central government in about a decade.

This is also a country where the various warlords, i.e. Farrah Aideed, use starvation as a weapon of war. Who is more responsible for the death of Sudan's children , the warlords in Sudan, or the U.S.?

Quote:

I agree that the US did bring the attack on themselves. and Canada, we're asking for it too. But not in the way the article suggests.

Blackmercedes, I'm really surprised you feel that way. Do you really feel that disagreeing with the policies of a country makes it o.k. to crash airplanes into buildings killing several thousand people? I can understand the arguments on why those in the middle east dislike the U.S. because of our policies towards teh Palestinians. I disagree with those arguments, but that's o.k. But that doesn't in anyway justify the attacks. How would you respond to the points brought up in the Newsweek editiorial I posted, such as:

"This mindless moral equivalency is the nub of what lefties mean when they talk about "the chickens coming home to roost," or "reaping what you sow." Talk about ironic: the same people always urging us to not blame the victim in rape cases are now saying Uncle Sam wore a short skirt and asked for it. "

"But there's a big difference between understanding Islam and the history of the region, which we need much more of, and understanding evil, which is not just offensive but impossible."

"Sad to say, the line between explaining terrorism and rationalizing it has been repeatedly breached by a shallow left stuck in a deep anti-American rut. "

"The causal business is really pernicious," say Peter Awn, a professor of Islamic religion at Columbis what says it results from ignorance of the complexities of the region. "People are going back to the one area they know something about, the Isreali-Palestinian struggle, and that's a shame. It shows their ability to understand the reast of the Islamic world is minimal."

The trick is to learn some lessons from the past without implying that we had it coming."

suginami · #18 09-08-2002, 02:39 PM

Blackmercedes - Well said.

420SEL · #19 09-08-2002, 04:41 PM

Just so everyone knows, I think the article and poll were very misleading. The Globe and Mail is a very leftist paper to begin with and they aren't known for caring too much about accuracy or correctlying interpretting polls and the wording of thier questions leaves plenty of room for concluding just about anything remotely connected to the subject. I don't know a single person up here who thinks the US was in anyway responsible for what happened last year. I know I certainly don't.

Jason Beal · #20 09-08-2002, 04:50 PM

. Again you did not read my post correctly. I do not put more credibility on Sudan than the U.S. How so? This is not me reading the “Sudan Times” This is a well-established fact with the UN. You are also starting with the flag-waiving bit here. That I place more truth or credibility in another “Bad” country. You attack my patriotism. This is a segue to my next point by Mike who claims I’m “wrong”. Wrong about what? I am POINTING OUT what is already an established fact. You are telling me then that I am wrong for pointing these out? Because there is surely nothing “wrong” or untrue about the facts.

“What kind of idiot country would build 50% of their product in one place? “

A country that is POOR that is who. This was a plant that made affordable medicine for people who were are ready in the middle of a war-torn infrastructure. That has to be one of the most arrogant things I’ve read yet.
When somebody points out that bombing a pharmaceutical plant may in turn kill thousands of people we get this typical answer:

“Sudan is a country that has been in a civil war for so long that it hasn't had a functioning central government in about a decade. This is also a country where the various warlords, i.e. Farrah Aideed, use starvation as a weapon of war. Who is more responsible for the death of Sudan's children, the warlords in Sudan, or the U.S.?”

So we shift blame, ignoring what we have done and move on to the next subject. Sure there are other factors that make a short life span of the Sudanese, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that we could have potentially killed another 100,000 people in the long run. I guess if they are all dying all over the place, what the hell are another 100k, huh? THAT IS WHY PEOPLE HATE US. Arrogance while simply waiving our hands around and saying, “Oh that's ridiculous, that is non-sense”. We especially do this with poor countries. What I see here is: ZERO THOUGHT OR COMPASSION FOR ANYBODY BUT AMERICA.

“People have to remember why the United States became the leader of the free world and the peace keeper of the world. “

In 1985 Reagan let off a bomb in Beirut outside of a mosque. It killed 80 and wounded 250 mostly women and children (Washington Post). They were going after a Muslim cleric, who they didn’t get by the way. Hey I guess we have to do what we have to do, to get the bad guy and keep piece.

During the Clinton administration we supplied 80 percent of the arms to Turkey who was crushing their own Kurdish population. It was ethnic cleansing at it’s worst and hardly reported by our media.

Now, tell me I’m wrong. Tell me I put more emphasize on the Turkish government, or the Beirut media and tell me that I don’t give the U.S.A. enough credibility. If you can do nothing but ignore facts, and tell me I’m wrong or naive, it’s not really much of a debate. Not to mention you are missing my point entirely, and turning it into “You don’t love America” rant. True you have your right to say whatever you want, but at least have something better than what you are giving me. Go read a few books. I’m done with this thread.

#21 09-08-2002, 04:51 PM

From the New York Times, today:

"One year after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, about half of the public said the Bush administration did not have a clear plan to fight terrorism, and nearly as many said they felt somewhat uneasy and not safe from another terrorist attack.

A quarter of the public, but a third of those in the Northeast, said they feared an attack in their area. One American in 10 said the administration had made "a lot of progress" in eliminating terrorist threats from nations besides Afghanistan.

The survey portrayed a hesitant nation with a sense of inevitability and little of the eager combativeness that surrounded the reaction to the bombing of terrorist targets in Afghanistan last year. A large majority said it expected the American forces to "end up fighting against Iraq."

One-fourth said Iraq presented such a grave threat that the United States should act now, while two-thirds said the nation needed to wait for support from its allies. Another big majority said Mr. Bush should get Congressional approval before making war.

The troubled answers about the campaign against terrorism at home and abroad conveyed a similar fatalistic, slightly cranky mood. A year ago, three-fifths of Americans said the government had done enough to protect them against another terrorist attack; now two-fifths do. That drop in confidence was mirrored in follow-up interviews."

"Support for a war declined when the public was offered other alternatives or considerations. Fifty-six percent cautioned delay so that the United Nations could try to get weapons inspectors back in Iraq. When asked if they would favor war if it would last "months or even years," 49 percent favored a war and 44 percent opposed it.

Sixty-two percent said the president "should have to get the approval of Congress before taking military action against Iraq." Among those 65 and older, or old enough to recall World War II, 74 percent said Congressional approval was required. Still, the 62 percent figure was down from the 71 percent who said so in a CBS News poll early in August."

for the whole article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/politics/08POLL.html

What I think is that if Iraq is such a credible threat, Bush and his cronies (the chickenhawks) need to sell their idea for a confrontation with Iraq to the U.N. If the United Nations finds it credible, based on hard evidence, only then do I think we should make a move against Iraq.

Feel free to diss/criticize the New York Times.

-Sam

yhliem · #22 09-09-2002, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rsbiomedical
[B]
The Canadians that think that the US is somewhat responsible for the 9-11 attacks can kiss my American A$$ if it was not for the US Canada would be a Soviet State. I don’t care what anybody has to say about this post so don’t bother flaming because, once again I don’t care about bleeding heart idiocies.
/B]

Wow...f#@$ you too. That's a pretty ignorant statement to make (along with pretty much the rest of your post.) But hey, you don't care, right?

I'll have to congratulate you though; because in that one post, you have managed to embody almost all of the negative steroetypes that exist about America and Americans. Though I can't fault you for your patriotism, you may want to get your marbles re-counted 'cause it seems like you're a few short of a full bag.

Though I may come under fire for this, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine can be summed up in this quote from the article in question.

Quote:

But he said the poll suggests Canadians recognize that the projection of military might around the world comes with a price tag, even as many Americans struggle to understand why they were attacked.

"I think this is Canadians saying, 'You are bound to get stung when you stick your hand in the hornets' nest looking for honey,'" Mr. Wright said. "But I don't think this is evidence of people saying they deserved what they got at all."

My interpretation of this is not that the US "deserved what it got". Nothing can justify what happened on that day almost a year ago. Nothing. My personal opinion is that, in the past, the US foreign policy has been, at times, somewhat questionable and has angered other countries and cultures.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, these foreign policies have caused some people out there to view the United States as "The Enemy". All those feelings that people in the US have against the Al Quaeda...well, I hate to break it to you, rsbiomedical, some people feel the same way about the US.

There is a world of difference between responsibility, causing, and deserving.
Did the US "deserve" what happened? Of course not! Who would??
Did the US "cause" the events of Sept 11? Contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe, no.
Is the US partially responsible? Through the foreign policies of the past, yes, in some ways I believe the US Government is responsible.

The US has been the "police force of the world" sure, I'm not here to dispute that. But I think what is missing is that when one is in that position, one cannot afford to piss off the entire population. Look at anyone with a high profile. They HAVE to keep their nose extra clean because they are under so much scrutiny and every little speck of dust will be jumped on and twisted into a mountain of dirt.

My point is that the US government needs to realize that it has to make its decisions VERY carefully. Let's take a recent example: George W. Bush. Here is the man in charge of a world power who, at the start of his term, was already walking on the edge. He would rather have won the election on a controversial decision that do the right thing and recall the election. It would not have been easy, but it would have been do-able. It also would have probably been the fairest way to solve the issue. Nevermind the fact that his BROTHER is the governor of the state in which most of the controversy took place.

Further to that he has not only pissed of China (a HUGE potential marketplace for the US) with the whole spy plane incident, he tried to stand up to China and then had to back down. He probably lost most of his credibility with the other world leaders there. Oh, let's not forget that he doesn't even know who his country's number one trading partner is, and that he managed to piss off his closest ally by failing to show much concern for the deaths of Canadian soldiers at the hands of an American pilot who 1) should not have been where he was and 2) was ordered not to open fire.

By the way, rsbiomedical, the US isn't the Peace Keeper of the world, it's the police force of the world. Make no mistake about it, the role of Peace Keeper is a Canadian one. In case you have any doubts about Canada's contribution, read the following:

"The country the world forgot - again" By Kevin Myers (Filed:
21/04/2002) London Daily Telegraph

"UNTIL the deaths last week of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed
by a US warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home
country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in the region.
And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the rest of the
world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets
nearly everything Canada ever does.
It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid
both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis
is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower
that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask
her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her
fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is
repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still,
while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely
neglecting her yet again. That is the price which Canada pays for sharing
the North American
Continent with the US, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two
global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two
different directions: it seemed to be a part of the old world, yet have an
address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never
fully got the gratitude it deserved. Yet its purely voluntary contribution
to
the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any
democracy.
Almost 10 per cent of Canada's entire population of seven million people
served in the armed
forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied
victories
of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable
soldiers
in the entire British order of battle. Canada was repaid for its enormous
sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being
absorbed
into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British". The
Second World War
provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen
vessels,
and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack.
More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings,
during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada
finished the war with the third largest navy and the fourth largest air
force
in the world. The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as
it had
the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in
film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign
which the US had clearly not participated - a touching scrupulousness
which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of
a separate Canadian identity. So it is a general rule that actors and
film-makers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality - unless, that
is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald
Sutherland, Michael J Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David
Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American,
and Christopher Plummer British. It is as if in the very act of becoming
famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood,
who is as unshakeably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada
has proved quite unable to find any takers.
Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements
of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware
of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves - and are unheard by
anyone else - that 1 per cent of the world's population has provided 10 per
cent of the world's peace-keeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half
century have been the greatest peace-keepers on earth - in 39 missions
on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peace-keeping duties, from Vietnam to
East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia. Yet the only foreign engagement which has
entered the popular
non-Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which
out-of-control
paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then
disbanded in disgrace - a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for
which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit.
So who today in the US knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its
northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan? Rather like Cyrano de
Bergerac, Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives,
but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of
fun. It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such
honour comes at a high cost. This weekend four shrouds, red with blood and
maple leaf, head homewards; and four more grieving Canadian families know
that cost all too tragically well."

And in case I didn't say it clearly enough for you the first time, rsbiomedical. go bugger yourself. By the way, that is intended just for you because most of the other americans I have had the pleasure of getting to know through this forum are fine examples of amreicans. You, however, are a fine example of what everyone ought to strive not to be.

And just so i can quote Sean Connery from "The Rock": "Personally, I think you're a f#$%ing idiot."

Have a good day, eh?

jcantor · #23 09-09-2002, 08:03 AM

US foreign policy is one of those difficult things where everyone is right and everyone is wrong all at the same time. Why? Because it all comes down to degrees and opinions. Sure, there are some facts but even those quickly get twisted and forgotten by many if not all.

Let's try using a simpler analogy: the speeder who get's stopped by a state trooper. Dispite all the advice you read about not arguing with a cop, what do a lot of people do in this situation? They argue, they yell and scream, they get defensive. They do all these things even though they were well aware of what the law was and that what they were doing was wrong. So why do they take it out on the cop who is just doing his or her job and enforcing the law they CHOOSE to break? Because that's easier than admitting their own mistake.
And what does the cop do? In many cases, he or she just stands there and takes it and then issues the ticket. In others, unfortunately, the cop allows his or her (usually his) emotions to take over and they yank the driver from the car and "handle them harshly" and it ends up as front page news.

Does this make either of these actions, the yelling and screaming of the driver or the beating from the cop right? H#$ll no!! But that doesn't mean that in a sad way, we can't understand and in some ways predict/expect both actions.

So how does this apply to the current discussion? I was in shock the morning of the 11th and in some ways probably still am. Like many, I still catch myself periodically thinking this was all a bad dream and the towers are still standing. Yet I have also now started to realize that from the crazy, ill-informed, highly emotionally charged view of a religious fanatic, the US probably does look like an enemy. Just like the speeding driver in my analogy above, I can see where it may be easier for some to blame the US for their problems and attack us rather than set up stable governments that actually solve those problems and provide for their citizens. And I can also see that like the cop who looses it and beats the driver to an inch of his life, we as a country sometimes loose our collective head and do stupid things for which some in the world judge us very very harshly.

I don't recall who made the post earlier, but I 100% agree that no matter what we do, there will always be those that disagree and those that disagree strongly enough to contimplate the unthinkable such as the 9/11 attacks against us. I also agree that part of what we are hated for is exactly that which we hold so dearly - our freedom and our prosparity. Again, it is easier to hate and attack those who have more than one does rather than to do the hard work to get those things ourselves. Read any good psycology (sp?) text you will see that this is very much a part of human nature - jealousy. And we each do it ourselves in our own lives. Don't like the fact that our successful neighbor just got a fancy new car and a great promotion at work? Instead of embarking on a plan of self improvement and more effective efforts at work and at home, we will frequently talk to others of how our neighbor must have "slept with the boss" so to speak in order to get their promotion?

The fact that we sometimes make mistakes along the lines of the cop who goes ape on a speeding driver, simply becomes the logical or rational explaination used by those who attack or criticize our country. What I believe is needed here is a healthy, rational, and HONEST discussion of some of the past and present mistakes of US foreign policy (no, I know that there will never be complete agreement on these issues) that does not condone the excessive response of some extremists that we saw on 9/11 but does recognize that we, too, are imperfict and are making mistakes as we learn and improve. We as Americans also need to realize that if we are going to reach out across the globe and take actions based on our beliefs, we are sometimes going to be that cop faced with the screaming driver even though we have very good reason for believing we are in the right.

jlc

#24 09-09-2002, 08:06 AM

Wow...f#@$ you too. That's a pretty ignorant statement to make (along with pretty much the rest of your post.) But hey, you don't care, right?

Yip I must be just plain ignorant and no I don't care.

I am patriotic I believe in my country. Everybody in my family has served my country voluntarily. We serve because of the need to repay our country for the great opportunities it has provided us. We have benefited substantially from our country and feel strongly that we must support our country.

On the ignorance note how can you possibly judge me by one post, and for a short of a full bag? It’s kind of amusing some people must attack the person and not the issue. If you want to get into a battle of the wit and achievement send me your email address and we can compare score cards.

As for Canadians I love our great neighbors and always will, but again I will never let anybody give my country flack.

suginami · #25 09-09-2002, 12:02 PM

Quote:

He would rather have won the election on a controversial decision that do the right thing and recall the election. It would not have been easy, but it would have been do-able. It also would have probably been the fairest way to solve the issue.

Yhliem, I enjoyed your post, but you got this one wrong. About a year after the election, after all of the newspapers and journalists reviewed all of the votes / non-votes in the whole state of Florida, they released their results. I read their findings in an article in the Los Angeles Times. They categorized all of the votes, i.e. hanging chads, pregnant chads, etc., in all the counties in Florida and showed who would've won and how many votes they would've gotten in all sorts of scenarios. They discovered that in over a dozen different ways of counting, George Bush would've won in every scenario but one. And the one in which Gore would've won was one that wasn't even considered, and it was an unusual / illogical set of situations.

I actually think Gore, not Bush made the biggest mistake by taking the low road in not having a recount in the whole state, but only in the most heavily Democratic leaning voting counties.

mikemover · #26 09-09-2002, 01:21 PM

Jason, Jason, Jason.....It's common knowledge that aggressive and/or terrorism-supporting regimes hide their stockpiles of weapons and equipment in or near schools, mosques, pharmacies, hospitals, etc. for a VERY obvious reason--So that we are less likely to find it, or target it and destroy it. And when we do take such action, it generates all kinds of negative press around the world, making the US look like the big bullies, and people like YOU always buy into the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Don't be another sucker.

And why should we pander to the U.N. so much, asking their approval for everything short of taking a piss? The U.N. has proven itself to be one of the most socialist/communist-leaning, anti-free market, anti-capitalism, and anti-U.S. organizations to ever exist, all the while expecting us to pick up most of the tab for all of their pet causes. I say NO. I begrudge every CENT of our tax dollars that ends up in U.N. hands.

Just because our system has worked, and we are hugely successful because of it, why should that make us the "babysitter-by-default" for the whole damn world? Example: Let's assume the path you choose in life and career is much more successful than mine, and your investments pay off well, and you become wealthy and influential. Does that by default make you responsible for ME? Should you be suddenly obligated to assume MY debts, and take care of me and feed me and clean up my messes?...I think not. The U.N. is trying to force the U.S. into that role, worldwide.

Mike

Jason Beal · #27 09-09-2002, 03:37 PM

Your rant is not worth replying to since I've addressed it prior with things like, "Read a book(s)" or "arrogant", and especially "You missed my point entirely". Please refer back to those posts. Thank you

mikemover · #28 09-09-2002, 03:58 PM

I've read those posts carefully, and it's comments like "read a book" that sound remarkably arrogant and assuming to me! The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean they are not well read, or that they have any less understanding of the subject than you.

Mike

#29 09-09-2002, 04:46 PM

I may not be the best writer but neither was Einstein. As for the marbles one thing I am very good at is counting trust me on this one.

Personal attacks aside, our world is a world governed by force whether it's Army Ant's or Humans it will continue until the end of time.

I am just making my point as simple as possible, I am very open minded and tolerant of opposing view points but I will fight when provoked on the following issues.

1. My family
2. My country
3. My integrity

You have crossed all three lines, again I said take it off the board and we can exchange emails share things of interest like degrees, homes, cars, family who signs our pay checks (my signature happens to be in the lower right corner) pictures of our office or cubicle ect.

Sometimes the open minded academic types are the most hateful intolerant humans I have ever encountered.

yhliem · #30 09-09-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by suginami

Yhliem, I enjoyed your post, but you got this one wrong. About a year after the election, after all of the newspapers and journalists reviewed all of the votes / non-votes in the whole state of Florida, they released their results. I read their findings in an article in the Los Angeles Times. They categorized all of the votes, i.e. hanging chads, pregnant chads, etc., in all the counties in Florida and showed who would've won and how many votes they would've gotten in all sorts of scenarios. They discovered that in over a dozen different ways of counting, George Bush would've won in every scenario but one. And the one in which Gore would've won was one that wasn't even considered, and it was an unusual / illogical set of situations.

I actually think Gore, not Bush made the biggest mistake by taking the low road in not having a recount in the whole state, but only in the most heavily Democratic leaning voting counties.

Sugi,

My bad. I must have missed the followup reports. Thanks for the correction. I still don't think very highly of Dub-ya though.

Then again, I'm not a huge fan of our own PM. :p