I Am Canadian!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mirrille]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Don't even start on that your newspapers are better than the United State's. I've been to Canada tons of times - and I know they latch onto disaster stories just as much. Canadian news is NO better than the US's.

Aiii! Gomen! I wasn't meaning to say that American newspapers were bad because they emphasize disaster stories. It was just that someone was defending the US reaction saying that" yes, the US newspapers did report the friendly fire incident. It was not just tucked in the back somewhere." And I was saying, "yes. I can believe that. That's just the sort of story newspapers would print. I would actually be surprised if they just tucked it in the back just because they are American."

My my! You are so touchy on this thread. Everything to you is an insult. Please relax.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Finrod Felagund


Umm excuse me, not to start a huge bloody debate here but, no one expected the US to get involved in Vietnam. And notice how the US came late to both World Wars and only after they themselves were attacked. Could they not have been looking out for the interests of their allies and not just their own.

Little known fact: the US, to date, has been the only country to be tried for International Terrorism by the world council. It has been the only one to overthrow a resolution by the Security Council, regarding said terrorism. Finally, from page 73 of Noam Chomsky's book, "September 11",

UN General Assembly passed its first major resolution (in 1987) on terrorism. It passed 153 – 2 (US & Israel.)… The offending passage, “that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right… particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor… the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support.”

[Finrod Felagund]

Countries should be looking out for their allies as well because without allies we are easily defeated.

And Canada entered WW2 only a few days after Britain. We looked out for our allies.

And by the way, the French wanted you to get involved in Vietnam?
The French.
Lets all do whatever the French want us to.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mirrille

yes. I can believe that. That's just the sort of story newspapers would print. I would actually be surprised if they just tucked it in the back just because they are American."

You say that I'm not supposed to get upset by the tone - but what do you mean by - "..just because they are American."? Are you talking about American newspapers? or that it was American news that occurred and American soldiers caused the friendly fire? Who are you referring to in that sentence?

[mirrille]

JD, are you still upset?

OK. I found the previous quotes.

Some previously said:
"And guess what? The American media either did not even mention this or they just stuffed it into the last line of an article, preferring instead the "feel good story of the US Marines coming home to their family".

And then Afro-elf says:
"That is an UTTER AND BLANANT LIE!!!!!
That story was all over the news."

And then mirrille says:
"I don't know about American newspapers, although I'd imagine they'd latch onto a disaster story like this just as normal."

Then JD got upset, so mirrille tries to clarify:
"yes. I can believe that. That's just the sort of story newspapers would print. I would actually be surprised if they just tucked it in the back just because they are American."

In other words, I very much doubt that American newspapers would cover up some big international disaster out of some loyalty to their own country. I very much doubt that American media would want to hide this, because that's not what newspapers do. Someone accused US newspapers of overlooking Canadian deaths. A-E denied that, quite vehemently, i might add. I just commented that I believe A-E more because I find it more likely that a disaster story would be "all over the news", rather than "stuffed ... into the last line of an article." That's the way newspapers are. I only mentioned American newspapers in particular because the original complaint was about American newspapers being biased.

There! I've already apologized for the misunderstanding and explained myself. If you still take offense, there's no more I can do except say that I'm sorry you feel that way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mirrille
JD, are you still upset?

No - now I understand what you were saying. That's why we have freedom of the press. So the government has less of a chance of hiding things. In a way - our media is the fourth branch of our government. They keep the other three branches in check.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Finrod Felagund
Countries should be looking out for their allies as well because without allies we are easily defeated.

And Canada entered WW2 only a few days after Britain. We looked out for our allies.

Sorry - but YOU ARE part of the United Kingdom. What is the Queen's title over Canada again?

As Canada's Head of State, Her Majesty has been served by nine Governors General (Vincent Massey, 1952-59; Georges Vanier, 1959-67; Roland Michener, 1967-74; Jules Léger, 1974-79; Ed Schreyer, 1979-84; Jeanne Sauvé, 1984-90; Ramon Hnatyshyn, 1990-95; Roméo LeBlanc, 1995-99; Adrienne Clarkson, 1999-present) and nine Prime Ministers (Louis St-Laurent, 1948-57; John Diefenbaker, 1957-63; Lester B. Pearson, 1963-68; Pierre Elliot Trudeau, 1968-79 and 1980-84; Joseph Clark, 1979-80; John Turner, 1984; Brian Mulroney, 1984-1993; Kim Campbell, 1993; Jean Chrétien, 1993-present).

Throughout Her reign, Canada has seen many key historical developments: our evolution as a bilingual and multicultural society, our rededication to democratic principles and our enhancement of a collective sense of shared values and purpose. She has been, and continues to be, a fundamental part of that identity. As Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stated in his congratulatory message to Her Majesty The Queen on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne (February 6, 2002):

As Queen of Canada, you have borne witness to our national growth and, indeed, have been present for many historic moments in the life of our country. I have had the honour to be in your presence on numerous occasions, and have always admired your commitment to Canada and your very genuine affection for Canadians.
From - Golden Jubilee: A Canadian Celebration

And you were even closer to Britain during World War I & II. It goes withouth saying that you would get involved in Britain's Wars before the US does. We threw off the shackles of Britain in 1776 and defeated the greatest world power at the time to win that independence. Britain fought us in 1812 and tried to retake the US. The US and Canada were also at war at this time. Britain then sided with the South during the Civil War to try bringing down the United States again. I guess they didn't really care about the issue of slavery - something that Europe brought to the colonies before the US was even founded.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Little known fact: the US, to date, has been the only country to be tried for International Terrorism by the world council. It has been the only one to overthrow a resolution by the Security Council, regarding said terrorism.

What terrorism were we accused of? I've thought for a long time - we should leave the United Nations. They're a joke. It's a massive global beauracracy that comes to the US whenever they need military support. We are a sovereign nation - and our Constitution does not allow us to be ruled by a foreign organization such as the UN.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


What terrorism were we accused of? I've thought for a long time - we should leave the United Nations.

Refers to Nicaragua, specifically. But also other acts against Timor, etc.

[jerseydevil]

In trying to find information on when the US was tried for International Terrorism on the UN website - I came upon this....

By resolution 1267 (1999), it demanded that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden to appropriate authorities so that he can be brought to justice.

A lot of good the UN did there.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Refers to Nicaragua, specifically. But also other acts against Timor, etc.

Show me something that has about this. Just because the US was accused of something - doesn't make it true. Also - what was the verdict? Were we found guilty? I know that a lot of countries are constantly trying to bring stuff against the US - that's to be expected when you're the most powerful.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


Show me something that has about this. Just because the US was accused of something - doesn't make it true. Also - what was the verdict? Were we found guilty?

It can be found in, Noam Chomsky's "September 11", and yes, the US was found guilty. It went before the World Court, and then the Security Council.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Refers to Nicaragua, specifically. But also other acts against Timor, etc.

So then this is the guy your getting all your info from? Noam Chomsky

It's very interesting some of his other views. I think that site will give people a better view of his beliefs than what you have said -
* Interview on Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future - Interview conducted in 1995 by Kevin Doyle on behalf of Red and Black Revolution, a libertarian communist magazine.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
[B]

So then this is the guy your getting all your info from?

Anarchism, and socialism are BAD things? Hmm... I'd better go revise my opinion on political systems, then.

:P

[jerseydevil]

Most people that our outside this country that say the US is evil - have never even been to this country nor do they realy know anything about US History. So I generally take things they say with a grain of salt.

After seeing some of Noam Chomsky's stuff - I now know where BoP is getting all her views from. And why they could be a little distorted toward Anti-Americanism. But most people only read stuff they already believe in - instead of working to uncover the truth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Anarchism, and socialism are BAD things? Hmm... I'd better go revise my opinion on political systems, then.

:P

Well i don't support those two political systems. I'm more of a libertarian. Governments should stay out of people's lives.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


Well i don't support those two political systems. I'm more of a libertarian. Governments should stay out of people's lives.

Yes, I agree with that. But please, explain how his political beliefs are supposed to discredit the World Court ruling? The numbers of dead, that the US army are responsible for, directly, and indirectly?

And I don't think the US is evil. I think they're a great country/people.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Yes, I agree with that. But please, explain how his political beliefs are supposed to discredit the World Court ruling? The numbers of dead, that the US army are responsible for, directly, and indirectly?

And I don't think the US is evil. I think they're a great country/people.

I can't answer that - because I don't know enough about that ruling by the UN to comment. I couldn't find anything about it on the web or on the UN website.

I do however know that ALL countries have blook on their hands. Australia has mistreated their aboriginal people badly for years. Europe and Africa were both involved with slaved trade. Russia killed millions of it's own citizens during the Stalinist years, not to mention during the czars. Iraq has used chemical weapons on their own people. Canada prevented Indians from practicing their own beliefs and speaking their own languages (I know this because I have friends that live on Six Nation Indian Reserve in Canada).

And concerning the US having blood on it's hands - if the world didn't expect us to always get involved - we'd have a lot less blood on our hands. Why should we mediate between Israel and the Palestians all the time? All it does it is come back to haunt us. Why don't some other countries take a leadership role? Blair recently did - but everyone knows that the only reason was because it was better to have someone else talking to the Middle Eastern countries after 9/11 then for us to be there. Why does the US always have to get involved?

I would be very glad and so would many Americans if the world would just let us be. But that is impossible - we live in a global community and whether we like it or not - we're all linked. Europe and Japan know that if the US is attacked again and we fall into a deep recession that the world economy is going down with us. We know that if oil is cut off to Europe and Japan that the world's economy would collapse. This makes it impossible for the US to go back into an isolationist stance again. Trade is what makes the world go round and trade is what keeps countries from attacking one another.

Sorry if you seem to think we're a war mongering country - but I disagree.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
[B]

I can't answer that - because I don't know enough about that ruling by the UN to comment. I couldn't find anything about it on the web or on the UN website.

You probably wouldn't. It's been supressed. (How do you spell that word?!)

I do however know that ALL countries have blook on their hands.

Yes, they do. NZ has some atrocities as well. What can I say? Humans suck.

And concerning the US having blood on it's hands - if the world didn't expect us to always get involved - we'd have a lot less blood on our hands.

While it is true, that in some instances, the US have been asked to step in and mediate, in others they have been asked to move out of the region, and let well alone. They didn't. The Nicaragua situation, as well as the East Timor situation are prime examples. Tens of thousands dead, directly and indirectly as a result of military action. The US army only just let the UN-led Australian peacekeepers into the region, after 25 years of the US military faction failing to bring about a compromise. And after the Clinton administration gave up buttering up to the murderous Suharto.

Sorry if you seem to think we're a war mongering country - but I disagree.

I don't think you are a war mongering country/people; I think the STATE, however, has a lot to answer for, that the media does not highlight. ie the numbers dead, the amount of times, the US STATE turned away help from other countries in capturing Bin Laden (Nicaragua offered a file on the al quaida network, and Bin Laden, and were snubbed.) And so forth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

You probably wouldn't. It's been supressed. (How do you spell that word?!)

Suppressed by who? Anyone can write anything they want - but the only thin you've given me on this - is written by a guy that obviously has nothing but contempt for almost anything the US does. So unless I can get the information from a news source or from the UN - I'm taking what he says with a grain of salt. I mean - why wasn't anyone else brought up on international terrorist charges?

the US STATE turned away help from other countries in capturing Bin Laden

We know that countries had offered to help and were turned away. Why their help was turned away is a big question people want answered.

I haven't followed Nicaragua in a while. But at the time - Russia (the Soviet Union at the time and Cuba) were helping to cause insurrection there too. I'm sorry - but the stablity of the Western Hemisphere is definitely in the US's best interest. We don't need enemy regime's getting a foothold at our doorstep. It may sound cold hearted - but it's the way the world works. All you have to do is just see how people behave to see how countries behave.