George Galloway blasts the Senate

JustWonders wrote:

A poll here in the U.S. might reveal that Americans aren't much interested in what Canadians think.

Sadly, insularity, xenophobia, arrogance and ignorance are at the heart of this problem, as is often so ably demonstrated here.

A poll here in the U.S. might reveal that Americans aren't much interested in what Canadians think.

blatham wrote:

A recent poll in Canada (headlined in the Vancouver Sun) noted that Canadians now consider George Bush and Osama as equally dangerous to world peace. I think what bothers me most about that is my suspicion both men would likely respond to this polling result with a sense of pride and accomplishment.

As difficult as it is to restrain myself in response to this, I shall attempt to do so.

What is there to learn of Canadians from this poll?

1) They have a sophisticated understanding of global politics and recognize that the President of the US has a greater influence on world peace than just about everyone else in the world by virtue of the extreme power of America

2) They are (at least as represented by the majority of those polled by the Sun) absolute idiots

I'm afraid I have to vote for #2

If the poll suggested that Canadians believe that Bush is far more the determinator of world peace than Bin Laden, I would have voted for #1. Instead, they believe that Bush is more dangerous to world peace, and therefore I am, unfortunately, forced to go with #2.

Let's try and examine this rationally.

If Osama Bin Laden surfaces again, it will likely be in connection with an attack on some nation or another (and most likely the US). Will such an attack damage World Peace? This is uncertain. One might argue, however, that without 9/11 there would probably not have been military intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq and so it is quite possible that another Bid Laden moment might precipitate additional military operations, and that to the extent that regional military operations damage World Peace, Bin Laden will be responsible.

On the other hand, President Bush surfaces each and every day (and putting aside Iraq to which I will return) there is simply no reason to believe that he has any policies, notions, wishes or desires to disturb World Peace.

There are several hot spots in the world:

North Korea
The Taiwan Straits
Iran
Palestine

If Canadians, or others, can illustrate to me how the Bush Administration is fanning the flames in these regions, and pushing the situations towards military conflict rather than diplomatic stalemate, if not resolution, I will be more than happy to stand corrected.

If I have missed a hot spot where there is evidence that the Administration is threatening to unleash the Dogs of War, please educate me and I will stand corrected.

The notion that Bush and his minions are war-mongers is unsustainable.

Since Bush has taken office there have been two military operations: Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most of the world (including Canada - I think) have no problem with our military action against Afghanistan given 9/11.

Iraq is, of course, a different story, but despite the dire (and frankly hysterical) predictions of members of The Left, invading Iraq did not result in World War III. There is, in fact, far less than a state of peace in Iraq, but who believes that World Peace hinges on the goings on in Mosul?

As far as this little bon mot:

"I think what bothers me most about that is my suspicion both men would likely respond to this polling result with a sense of pride and accomplishment."

Anyone who truly believes this is the ass of a horse...or moose, as the case may be.

blatham wrote:

Militancy in defence of liberty is no vice. Dawkins' piece, quoted by Helen, doesn't match any dictionary definition of 'hysterical' though her use does match an earlier American instance where Benjamin Rush described women who supported the redcoat swine in the pre-independence period as suffering from 'hysteria' (see Thomas Szasz in The Manufacture of Madness).

While I happen to agree with everything Dawkins said in that piece, his language was totally out of line for its stated purpose of swinging some votes in Ohio. Also, the Guardian was the wrong publication for addressing an American audience. In combination, I'd say those two lapses do qualify as hysterical.

On a different note, it is truly heartwarming to see you quote Barry Goldwater. It's a promising start. In your heart, you know he's right.

Marine Pfc. Jeremy Tod called home with news that his superiors were urging him and fellow Marines to buy special military equipment, including flak jackets with armor plating, to enhance the prospects of their survival.

The message was that such purchases were to be made by Marines with their own money.

WASHINGTON -- Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don't have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday.

The report, obtained by the Globe, says the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah.

McTag wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

A poll here in the U.S. might reveal that Americans aren't much interested in what Canadians think.

Sadly, insularity, xenophobia, arrogance and ignorance are at the heart of this problem, as is often so ably demonstrated here.

European knuckle-rapping smacks of hypocrisy. It's fairly difficult to maintain proper American insular xenophobia when our jobs are pouring into the sweatshops of China and Bombay and across the North American continent. And, of course it's called "protecting national interests" when western Europeans reject their EU constitution out of fear of the Polish Plumber or, worse, those dirty Muslim hordes. In my book, last week's trouncing by the French and Dutch set a new standard for xenophobia ... especially coming from such enlightened types.

As for ignorance, well you're going to have pockets of that no matter where you look -- I'm guessing it's on the very streets of Manchester and Liverpool. (Surprisingly, our own Mr. Kerry has been harboring his own small pocket if reports of his college GPA are to be believed.) Still, McTag, I've never swallowed your oft-stated contention that you've met many Americans who are surprised to learn your first language is English. Seems to be just a few more fibers in your very thin veil of contempt for most things American.

And as for arrogance ... I'll have to give you that one.

You Europeans seem to regard it as a badge of honor, so why shouldn't we?

at least we didn't elect and then RE-ELECT George Bush.

... at least we didn't elect and then RE-ELECT George Bush.

Noam Chomsky refered to Britain as America's attack dog, not poodle. The truth no doubt as with pedigrees lies somewhere in between.

"True. You elected and then RE-ELECTED his poodle, Tony Blair."

Oooooh, that was a swift kick in the groin. OUCH!

Apparently the British electorate agree.

A poll here in the U.S. might reveal that Americans aren't much interested in what Canadians think.

... I don't mind admitting when I've been wounded. All I can say is, I didn't vote for the little bugger.

And, even though Blair had no credible opposition in the recent election, the Iraq/US factor hit his majority hard.

JustWonders wrote:

A poll here in the U.S. might reveal that Americans aren't much interested in what Canadians think.

Edit "Britons" for "Canadians" and I believe we've come full circle.