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

#1 09-07-2002, 01:43 PM

I think this article from the Globe and Mail eloqently summarizes how arrogant and blinded by jingoistic patriotism some persons in this country have become since September 11th. American pollsters "will not ask the question, indeed." Telling, isn't it?

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20020907/wxpoll0907/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

Oh yes, and for the record, I feel that many post September-11th comments made by John Ashcroft sound like they've come from the mouth of a Soviet Communist Party politico. Encourage neighbors and postment to report any sort of "suspicious activity"? WTF IS suspicious activity? Will Ashcroft attempt to convict persons of "suspicious activity"? Please. Sounds like something the KGB would encourage in Stalin-era Russia.

Wow, that felt good to say.

-Sam

BlueBabyBenz · #2 09-07-2002, 02:14 PM

Well, this is one Canadian who doesn't agree with the poll. It is easy to find people of all nationalities willing to tell Americans how they should run their country.

I don't remember the pollsters asking me, btw.

There is a difference between a) knowing that as a nation in a position of great responsibility in the world, you are going to be a target of attacks, and b) somehow being responsible for religious fanatics deciding that they will fly hundreds of innocent victims into buildings containing thousands of innocent victims.

Whatever action the US takes, some group somewhere will object. Even if the US were to take no action in any given situation, somewhere some group will object to that strategy too.

Perhaps it is the price of having built a largely successful nation.

But to blame the US for the mindset of people who believe their god condones these attacks? Lets leave the responsibility right where it belongs- In the minds of those who planned and executed the attacks.

suginami · #3 09-07-2002, 02:29 PM

Jesus Crimeny! I am so sick and tired of hearing in the news that we are to blame for being attacked because of our policies toward the Middle East!

In October of 2001, there was a great editorial written by a well-known liberal, Jonathon Alter, which gives his opinion piece even more credibility. I clipped it out and have kept it in my briefcase ever since. Here are some excerpts:

"After we attack the Taliban and the terrorists strike us again, you know what's going to happen. A big old-fashioned peace movement will emerge that blames the U.S. for whatever further destruction is inflicted. We'll be told that we "prompted" or "provoked" the gas attack, football stadium bombing, assassination attempt, whatever. How do I know? Because a sizable chunk of what passes for the left is already knee-deep in ignorant and dangerous appeasement of the terrorism of Sept. 11. While moderate liberals seem to get who the bad guys are, some of their brethren farther left - especially on college campuses - are unforgivably out to lunch.

Like President Bush and the vast majority of the country, I'm for a targeted war that tries hard to avoid civilian casualties, Islamic blowback and other unintended consequences. And I'll defend forever the right of anyone to say any stupid thing without being fired or hassled by the authorities. But some of what's being said can truly try one's patience, and I'm not just talking abou Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's "Blame Homosexuality First" approach to explaining the attack.

The only thing worse than a silly politician analyzing art is a silly artist analyzing politics. The New Republic's "idiocy Watch," which is cataloging the fatuities, is full of the musings of novelists. Best-selling writer Barbara Kingsolver, confused by the patriotism around her, asked in the San Francisco Chronice whether the "flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sixism, homophobia, and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder? Whom are we calling terrorists here?"

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. A haughty Susan Sontag made it sound as if we were the ones being thickheaded for not seeing that Sept. 11 was a perfectly understandable response to years of American policy.

Obviously, some policies, like the United States' stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, have contributed to Osama Bin Laden's rage. 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. For certain (fortunately powerless) tenured radicals and antiwar vets, this post-Vietnam reflex seems as comfortable as an old sandal.

While most Americans view history through a 'Greatest Generation" World War II prism, this remnant remembers how wrong that analogy was for Vietnam. The left was on target then: for years the U.S. refused to negotiate much with the communists out of a misplaced fear of seeming to be Neville Chamberlain-style appeasers.

But history moves on, even for aging idealogues heavily invested in the past. "National security" is not a government cover story anymore, but a genuine problem. The terrorists we're looking for aren't pathetic little pamphleteers, like the American communists targeted in the Red Scare. Reactionary left-wingers are still so busy thinking the CIA is malevolent that they forget to notice it's incompetent; so busy nursing stale resentments that they forget to notice someone is trying to kill them.

"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. We've done that before. After WWII our leaders saw that theh punitive Versailles peace treaty following WWI had helped pave the way for Hitler. Sowe tried the generous Marshall Plan instead and it worked. But that came later. Only a fool would have given credence to Hitler's grievances, however leagitimate a few of them were, while we were fighting him.

And none but a fool would say, as the novelist Alice Walker did in The Village Voice, that "the only punishment that works is love." We've tried turning the other cheek. After the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing we held our fire and treated the attack as a lw enforcement matter. The terrorists struck again anyway. This time the Munich analogy is right: appeasement is doomed.

America Firsters grasped this point after Pearl Harbor and the isolationists ran off to enlist. So why can't Blame America Firsters grasp it now? Al Qaeda was planning its attack at eactly the time the U.S was offering a Mideast peace deal favorable to the Palestinians. Nothing from us would have satisfied the fanatics, and nothing ever will. Peace won't be with you, brother. It's kill or be killed."

#4 09-07-2002, 04:41 PM

I've obviously touched a very strong nerve here. I figured I would. Flame on...

I'm not saying that we were to blame for the terror attacks on the Middle East. We've done many things to support the oil-rich countries in the middle East...starting with our great demand for Middle Eastern oil. Hell, we buy PLENTY of Saudi oil that indirectly supported the Bin Laden family's construction business by making many Saudi oilmen wealthy. The SOB should thank us for building his family's wealth and making him the rich terrorist s**t that he is.

What I'm getting at is the perception of us by other countries. It seems that many countries in the rest of the world (and not JUST the Middle Eastern countries) view us as a huge, flailing and bungling colossus, as a result of post September 11th activity and other things.

Most countries in Europe seem to feel that we haven't even wrapped up the Afghanistan business--and then we want to go to war with Iraq? Sure, we captured some Al-Quaeda middle management types, but Mullah Omar and O.B.L. still remain at large, despite our best efforts to find them.

What discourages me most about the Iraq affair is that there doesn't seem to be ANY hard evidence connecting Hussein with Bin Laden and other Al-Quaeda terrorists, although Donald Rumsfeld would probably like us to believe otherwise. Sure, Hussein may very well have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons on his hands, but if they were truly an imminent threat, we would have probably acted like the Israelis did in 1981 and blown any suspected weapons factories & storage areas to hell with F-16s. Conflict with Hussein seems to be more of a political matter for Bush.

If Hussein doesn't comply with U.N. inspection terms and deadlines for suspected deadly weapon facilities, etc, let's assemble an international coalition and "go to the mattresses". Being part of an international coalition will help us avoidovercommitting ourselves by attempting to topple Hussein and prop up Afghanistan's shaky interim government and root out Al Quaeda in Afghanistan alone. Besides, it could help re-direct potential wrath of the League of Arab Nations (or whatever their organization is called).

Alter makes some very good points in his article, about how namby-pamby hard lefties tried to pull out the old Vietnam adage for strikes on Afghanistan. Regarding Afghanistan, I think Bush handled Afghanistan quite well (although I personally think he made a mistake with having his military commanders rely heavily on the Northern Alliance. That seems like something Al Gore would do--and yes, I consider myself a moderate liberal...but when you commit troops to a hostile region, you're already putting them at risk--why not "go the whole way" instead of relying on the Alliance, which was probably hazardous in its own way).

However, Iraq is an entirely different story from Afghanistan.

All I can hope is that our leaders don't make rash decisions that could prompt a huge backlash of anti-American sentiment (and yes, I am aware that it already exists in certain corners).

-Sam

mikemover · #5 09-07-2002, 06:06 PM

Quote:

What I'm getting at is the perception of us by other countries. It seems that many countries in the rest of the world (and not JUST the Middle Eastern countries) view us as a huge, flailing and bungling colossus, as a result of post September 11th activity and other things.

Most countries in Europe seem to feel that we haven't even wrapped up the Afghanistan business--and then we want to go to war with Iraq? Sure, we captured some Al-Quaeda middle management types, but Mullah Omar and O.B.L. still remain at large, despite our best efforts to find them.

My opinion on it is that their "perception" of us means very little if they are not willing to assist. The reality is that they either need to seriously step up to the plate and help, or shut the h*ll up.

mike

suginami · #6 09-07-2002, 07:52 PM

I really don't care if other countries support us, or not.

It bothers me that most countries in the world think that we are at least partly to blame for Sept. 11.

I'm not sure whether or not it matters if Iraq helped or was part of the Al Qaeda plot to crash 4 airplanes at buildings in the U.S.

What matters is that Saddam Hussein supports terrorism against the U.S., he tried to assassinate President Bush #38 (and failed) when #38 went to Kuwait, he is failing to live up to his agreements with the U.S. in surrendering after the Persian Gulf War and with U.N. resolutions relating to not making weapons of mass destructions - biological and nuclear weapons. He has developed and used biological weapons against the Kurds and continues to deny that it ever happened to this day.

The whole world is against us going after Saddam Hussein not because they think he is not a madman, but because they are against U.S. unilateralism. We are the only superpower left in the world, and they are afraid of a U.S. that acts on its own without the U.N.'s approval.

The rest of the nations in the world remind me a lot of how Europe handled Hitler, make peace treaties with him, negotiating with him, yada yada yada. Hitler was a madman who couldn't be negotiated with, and thank God for Winston Churchill, who believed Hitler needed to be destroyed.

If Saddam Hussein is successful in building a crude nuclear bomb (and everyone seems to believe he's very close), we've lost. We've lost the initiative. It will be nearly impossible to attack Iraq or control Saddam Hussein because he's stupid enough to use nuclear weapons.

You know, having character, and talking about your values and beliefs is easy, until your values are tested. If you say you are against adultery, and then go ahead and commit adultery, you may say that you don't believe in adultery, but when you were tested, you failed. You showed your wife and the world that you didn't hold your values dearly.

It's the same thing with Iraq. It's not always easy or popular to do what's right, but you go ahead and do what's right anyway. Even if everyone says or thinks your wrong. That is when the rubber hits the pavement.

mikemover · #7 09-07-2002, 07:56 PM

VERY well said, suginami!

Mike

Jason Beal · #8 09-07-2002, 09:33 PM

“We've tried turning the other cheek. After the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing we held our fire and treated the attack as a lw enforcement matter. The terrorists struck again anyway. This time the Munich analogy is right: appeasement is doomed. “

Actually we bombed Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998. 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.

The U.S. has year plenty of examples of why the rest of the world views it as a leading terrorist state. It’s all right there for us to read if we look for it. I for one am tired of hearing that I am not a flag-waiving patriot if I question the actions of my government past and present. Part of freedom and being American is having the right to question our government and the media. Americans seem to forget that rather quickly and want to view themselves as the cowboy with the white hat.

#9 09-07-2002, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Part of freedom and being American is having the right to question our government and the media. Americans seem to forget that rather quickly and want to view themselves as the cowboy with the white hat.

Well said. I wish I had been able to express myself that eloquently.

I find it rather disturbing that a good number of Americans take the "You're with us (100%) or you're against us" adage to heart. Things are NOT black and white, people. One is NOT a "terrorist" if they wish to question the actions of the Bush Administration.

Oh yeah, and George H.W. Bush was #41. (G.W. Bush is #43).

-Sam

vrsmith · #10 09-07-2002, 10:17 PM

I am another Canadian that doesn't agree with the poll. To say
that the U.S.A. bore any responsibility for 9/11 is naive. I think
that people are confusing preparedness with responsibility. If so,
no nation on the planet would have been prepared for the attacks.
When the planes crashed last year, my family was there with you.
I was in Seattle that morning; I will never forgot where I was. My
wife was panicked because I was in the U.S. but she and I
grieved for the victims. Later, we found that many Canadians and
others were amoung the dead. I cheered when the U.S. & UN were
able to mount an attack on the Taliban. I had read of the plight
of women in Afghanistan and I wished the Taliban could be
eliminated well before 9/11. Iraq has proven to be a problem
that doesn't go away by itself.

God bless America!

suginami · #11 09-08-2002, 12:40 AM

Jason and Sam,

Feel free to view the U.S. as a terrorist country.

It is a view I don't share with you.

If you believe that Sudan, Afghanistan, or the Al Qaeda view of an Arab empire, are great places to live, feel free to live there.

With all its faults, if I had to chose to believe what Al Qaeda or the Sudanese governemt says, or to choose to believe what the U.S. government says, I'll chose to believe our government.

Even though I vehemently disagree with both of your opinions, you are still entitled to them and it doesn't make you more or less of an American than me. I think it just makes you naive.

Jason Beal · #12 09-08-2002, 04:19 AM

If you read what I wrote you will see that I did not say that I believe that we are a terrorist state. But I did write why many people in the world do. I gave just one small example of why people would think that. It is important to know WHY people think the USA is a leading terrorist state. (The US was found guilty of terrorism in 1986 for attacking Nicaragua. It refused to recognize the World Court, all the while our media portrayed the World court as criminal-again this is just one example).

If we avoid looking in the mirror then we do not address the problem. We refuse to acknowledge the actions of our government may take as many innocent lives as a terrorist who flies a jet into a building.

I think what happened on 9-11 was one of the worst things I've ever seen in my life. It was the worst way for man to treat another man. But we must realize that there are many different kinds of terrorism.

"If you believe that Sudan, Afghanistan, or the Al Qaeda view of an Arab empire, are great places to live, feel free to live there."

Your reply is EXACTLY what I am talking about in my first post. I pointed out what many in the world may think, and you attach it to me. Then you tell me that I should go live there if it’s so great. Not once did I say that it was the sole opinion of the countries you mention either. It is not necessarily an opinion unless you claim it as your own. Rather it is factual information. People in the world (in places other than “Taliban friendly”) see us as a leading terrorist state. No matter what language it is written in, or who is saying it.

Also if you are going to call somebody naïve then I suggest you go and READ something outside your comfort zone. If you only consume information that you always agree with, then you may be even more naïve than I. You may find that your opinions change when you digest something that is outside of our media. (And BTW I’m not telling you to go pick up a copy of the “Taliban Weekly”)

That is my point. As an American with our freedoms it is our duty to question what our government and our media tells us. Enough said.

#13 09-08-2002, 10:10 AM

First off I will never apologize for my country, we do what we have to do whether it’s bomb a pharmaceutical plant or a baby milk factory. What kind of idiot country would build 50% of their product in one place?

The thing that disturbs me the most is that the countries that are most apt to bad mouth the US are the ones that benefit the most from it policies. Being leader of the free world is tough job and you have to make tough decisions. Our pals in France won’t back us and the press thinks their on to something…….They have not won a military battle in over 150 years, again I don’t care.

I think President Bush should go to the UN with Triumph the insult comic dog and rip on these fools. Saying the US is contributing to terror by buying Saudi oil is poppy cock. When you pay your taxes you pay for road maintenance does that make you responsible for everything that happens there?

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

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.

http://downloads.ehowa.com/~redwhiteandblue.wmv

thanks for the link Longston

#14 09-08-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

If you believe that Sudan, Afghanistan, or the Al Qaeda view of an Arab empire, are great places to live, feel free to live there.

What about Canada, Great Britain, some other European Union country, or Australia? If this country gets really twisted by Bush and any future presidents, who knows...

Sure, Canada does have higher taxes than the US does, but British Columbia is beautiful (much more so than Washington State IMHO) , and there's some damn good skiing up there.

Quote:

First off I will never apologize for my country, we do what we have to do whether it’s bomb a pharmaceutical plant or a baby milk factory. What kind of idiot country would build 50% of their product in one place?

This is the kind of arrogance that makes other countrys (NOT just the ones run by idiot mullahs and ayatollahs) dislike us. Can't you see the forest through the trees?

Quote:

if it was not for the US Canada would be a Soviet State.

That seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario.

Quote:

once again I don’t care about bleeding heart idiocies.

Let me guess, we should just roll into Baghdad right now, not caring about what anyone else thinks or does, or what the reprocussions (sp?) in the aftermath from other countries who could be in a position of power to harm us as a nation could be?

I'm guessing someone will say "Oh, but if they did that, they WERE going to hurt us anyway, because we are the United States and we are always right, WHATEVER we do."

Quote:

If you only consume information that you always agree with, then you may be even more naïve than I. You may find that your opinions change when you digest something that is outside of our media.

I agree. I read mainstream American trash (Newsweek, Time, USA Today) credible papers (New York Times, Seattle PI, Wall St. Journal) and foreign stuff (The Globe And Mail, The Vancouver Sun). IMHO, the Canadian papers can give an outsider's perspective, which is sorely needed in this troubled time.

www.globeandmail.com

www.vancouversun.com

I dunno what any good European dailies or weeklies might be, but I assume that they're out there. Oh yeah, I have a question...what is the most reactionary mainstream major American daily paper or weekly newsmagazine? I'd like to peruse it.

-Sam

Fanatic · #15 09-08-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rsbiomedical
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.

Wow.

You know what?!! Lets bomb every country that doesn't agree with the US. If they are not behide Bush's War Against Terrorism they MUST be terroist themselves.

Futhermore, lets jail eveyone that is going to disagree with the govenment because they must also be secretly supporting terrorists. Perhaps they are even harboring terrorists in their homes. Lets start a 'special' police force to check all the homes to make sure that they are not harboring terroists.

Sam, Jason, did you hear that knock on the door? That could be them...