Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

Montana,

McG's line of thinking is the same kind of thinking that brought about the Iraq invasion.

Quote:

Do you have evidence that there wouldn't?

Do we have any evidence that they don't have WMDs? Better go and get them.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Do you have evidence that there wouldn't?

It wasn't me who claimed Canada is 'protected' by the actions of the US military against their enemies.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
...only by the deterrence of the US military does Canada not come face to face with those threats.

Is this a suggestion or do you have evidence something worse could happen to Canada if there wouldn't be the mighty, big, important, admired US military?

Do you have evidence that there wouldn't?

Do you have any evidence that there would?

I am not going to discuss this at this level.

0 Replies

0 Replies

LOL McG!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Seriously, I have made my point and you wan't to drivel on back and forth whether or not a threat could have been real or not. We will never know because it didn't happen.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Is this a suggestion or do you have evidence something worse could happen to Canada if there wouldn't be the mighty, big, important, admired US military?

Do you have evidence that there wouldn't?

Canada has its own army. Its you who's saying that thats not what does the trick - its thanks to America that Canada survives. And they should just be grateful and know their place! Quite a contention to make, but you still wont even name a single example of what the US has protected / is protecting Canada against.

Was Canada spared a Soviet attack thanks to American military power? If Set is to be believed, its more like the other way round. I dunno, but you at least dont seem to have any argument for the other side.
Was Canada spared, say, a Nazi attack thanks to America? LOL ... lets not even take that one seriously.
Was Canada spared the threat by, say, communist revolutionaries in Vietnam, Cuba or Nicaragua? Oh, those didnt actually pose a threat to the US itself, either, that was about something else, OK.
Is Canada being protected against Al-Qaeda by the States? I dunno, is it? Would Al-Qaeda want to attack Canada - isnt their beef more specifically with America resp. the countries with troops in Iraq? And if Al-Qaeda does have intentions towards Canada, would the Canadese not be able to fend againt it by itself? You claim to know they wouldnt be, right? Oh, and what use is neighbouring to the huge American military hegemoth if the danger most likely is one of a sneaky, low-tech terrorist attack? And if AQ attacks Canada, wouldnt it rather be because of it being next to the US than despite it?

See, lots of possible arguments. We'll have to consider 'em by ourselves tho, seeing how you wont even venture into suggesting any kind of actual argument for your assertion yourself, whatsoever. Theres just the mantra that Canada has been protected against "the SAME EXACT threats that the US faces" - unspecified threats, protected against in unspecified ways - we're just to believe so. Like a good American would.

0 Replies

And that's my point. How can you make the premature conclusion that the US protects other countries from certain threats when you can not conclude whether these threats would have occured if the US military hadn't 'reacted' to them?

0 Replies

If there is no threats, why the need for this?

0 Replies

I think New Jersey should attack Canada. Tony Soprano and company could make quick mincemeat out of them.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Montana,

McG's line of thinking is the same kind of thinking that brought about the Iraq invasion.

Quote:
Do you have evidence that there wouldn't?

Do we have any evidence that they don't have WMDs? Better go and get them.

Oh, I know it. This isn't the first time McG and I have been in the boxing ring with this subject, and I'm sure it won't be the last ;-)

McG thinks the US should govern the world and attack all those who don't do as they're told. He was a bully in school too ;-)

0 Replies

True McGentrix, concerning your link. I totally blame me for that. In my sentence should have been added 'whether these threats would have evolved and occured'. I do realize this sounds lame, I personally hate it when people go 'add' things to get their point proven. This time I do think it's legitimate though.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
Is this a suggestion or do you have evidence something worse could happen to Canada if there wouldn't be the mighty, big, important, admired US military?

Do you have evidence that there wouldn't?

Canada has its own army. Its you who's saying that thats not what does the trick - its thanks to America that Canada survives. And they should just be grateful and know their place! Quite a contention to make, but you still wont even name a single example of what the US has protected / is protecting Canada against.

Was Canada spared a Soviet attack thanks to American military power? If Set is to be believed, its more like the other way round. I dunno, but you at least dont seem to have any argument for the other side.
Was Canada spared, say, a Nazi attack thanks to America? LOL ... lets not even take that one seriously.
Was Canada spared the threat by, say, communist revolutionaries in Vietnam, Cuba or Nicaragua? Oh, those didnt actually pose a threat to the US itself, either, that was about something else, OK.
Is Canada being protected against Al-Qaeda by the States? I dunno, is it? Would Al-Qaeda want to attack Canada - isnt their beef more specifically with America resp. the countries with troops in Iraq? And if Al-Qaeda does have intentions towards Canada, would the Canadese not be able to fend againt it by itself? You claim to know they wouldnt be, right? Oh, and what use is neighbouring to the huge American military hegemoth if the danger most likely is one of a sneaky, low-tech terrorist attack? And if AQ attacks Canada, wouldnt it rather be because of it being next to the US than despite it?

See, lots of possible arguments. We'll have to consider 'em by ourselves tho, seeing how you wont even venture into suggesting any kind of actual argument for your assertion yourself, whatsoever. Theres just the mantra that Canada has been protected against "the SAME EXACT threats that the US faces" - unspecified threats, protected against in unspecified ways - we're just to believe so. Like a good American would.

Exactly!!!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If there is no threats, why the need for this?

Ehmmm ... McG? The case you were making was that America protects Canada against threats.
Canada has an army and, hurrah, an anti-terrorism act of itself, good for them. How does that make your point that they can't defend themselves against the threats they face - and should therefore be grateful that their big American brother is there to protect them?
How does Canada implementing an anti-terrorism act of its own prove that they have something to be grateful to America for?
If anything, being next to America increases the threat of terrorism for Canadians, no?

0 Replies

Virtually every nation in the world, including Canada, Germany, France, and the rest of the entire U.N., believed Saddam had WMD at the time the U.S. invaded Iraq. The issue then was never whether WMD existed--everybody believed they did. The issue was whether we should continue to contain Saddam or take him out.

To Jer, I would say that to many Americans 9/11 and Iraq are interrelated because 9/11 created sufficient American rage to instigate a War on Terrorism and Iraq is part of that war. All I'm saying is that Canada might have a very different view about the whole thing if 9/ll had happened to Canada instead of the U.S.

It was, however, when the rebuilding began that most diplomatic issues developed. All those countries who didn't want to help take Saddam out were wanting lucrative rebuilding contracts and didn't think the U.S. should be able to say who would get them. That got GWB's back up and he wasn't very diplomatic about that.

It's kind of like the Little Red Hen baking her bread. Nobody wanted to help bake it but they sure wanted to help eat it. When she said no, I imagine she wasn't too popular either.

I do understand believing a cause is not worth making war and not wishing to be involved. The U.S. certainly has not taken sides or gotten involved in every conflict around the world and I hae certainly objected to some conflicts we have gotten ourselves into.

I would much prefer to be friends than enemies with just about anybody. Even Canada Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It's kind of like the Little Red Hen baking her bread. Nobody wanted to help bake it but they sure wanted to help eat it. When she said no, I imagine she wasn't too popular either.

Big difference: people were for sure the bread tasted good. We can not say (or conclude) that the War On Terrorism will 'taste good' for us.

0 Replies

I'm sure my post is crazy late again, but oh well.

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
the United States is indeed the richest, most powerful nation and therefore should be able to hold up to any and all criticism because it's greatness is so apparent

If you want to equate "great" with "powerful and wealthy", sure. I had the impression McG was going more for some moral, meritous or inherent superiority, that we should all be "grateful" for.
(I know I snipped out a question mark there, btw, no harm intended)

I don't think you can discount moral or meritous completely can you?... although people with money and power are frequently bashed without provocation or merit... is "wealthy and powerful" a green light to insult with impunity? An interesting question...

Your "snip" obviously did no harm... you'll notice I snipped it myself on my next post too. :wink:

Cav, snap out of it already. I can't believe you would reach so far as to say something that absurd. (Canadian Bacon is NOT better) Take off, aye

0 Replies

I don't think Canada would have thought differently if 9/11 happened to us instead of the US. I think Canada would have gone after the source of the attack and nothing more.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Virtually every nation in the world, including Canada, Germany, France, and the rest of the entire U.N., believed Saddam had WMD at the time the U.S. invaded Iraq. The issue then was never whether WMD existed--everybody believed they did.

Patently false - and it remains patently false no matter how often you people repeat it.

Germany, France, were not convinced by the "evidence" Powell brought forward to claim that America knew, for sure, that Iraq still had WMD.

Its not that they necessarly thought Iraq didn't have WMD - I'm sure they thought it likely. After all, we knew Iraq still had had WMD a few years before, even if most of them had been destroyed by the inspections regime. But they thought that, in order to OK a war, hard evidence was needed that Iraq actually still had them, and refused to disarm. And the evidence Powell presented was deemed perplexingly unconvincing.

The Germans were very clear about this, and I've quoted the German Foreign Minister about this here often before. In presence of all the other leaders, he turned to Rumsfeld and mid-sentence switched to English to tell him this:

"You have to make the case, and to make the case in a democracy, you have to be convinced yourself, and excuse me, I am not convinced."

This is why countries like Germany wanted the inspections regime to continue. To corroborate whether Iraq still did indeed have WMD and refused to destroy them. In order not to go to war on mere suspicion. A reasonable consideration, for which "Old Europe" was demonized by Washigton at the time. Now, he looks so right that in retrospect, you can't even believe that he already actually did say that, back then.

0 Replies

But Rick, wouldn't the diplomatic thing be to decline to participate at all rather than just want to participate in the part that is clearly advantageous for you and involves no investment and no risk? I once had a chance to buy Microsoft at $5 something a share. I thought it too expensive and declined. Would you believe that later my stockbrocker wouldn't let me change my mind and buy in at $5 something a share? When I wasn't willing to take the risk, I don't get to share in the profits.

And Montana, you may be right that Canadians would not be prompted to the same level of rage had you been attacked as the U.S. was attacked. You may have been satisfied with a retalitory blow and then go back to business as usual. In our case, we saw Saddam's regime as no different from the Taliban or Al Qaida. All terrorists everywhere were seen as eligible to target.

Clarification: by "we" I mean the majority of Americans who looked at it that way. As we all know, there was no universal consensus.

0 Replies

Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know