George Galloway blasts the Senate

I don't think there is any factual basis on which one could demonstrate that Canada or France bashing by Americans is any more prevalent (or vulgar and ignorant) than that done by Canadians and the French towards the United States. This is merely similar human behavior in similar corresponding circumstances.

The French, in particular have made a cult of (mostly superficial) resistance to things "Anglo Saxon" and of limiting our political and cultural influence in the world. That of course is their right: we have no basis on which to object to it. However, following all that, it would be disingenuous for a Frenchman to fret about American criticism of his country.

There was a big brouhaha over that in Canadia at the time, as well. Many there claim that the fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi was a result of the English knowingly taking short-cuts in the renovation.

Uh ... no ... but it does come to mind when you're pontificating to us mere mortals.



A perfect example, thank you. Regional barbs and nothing more. I grew up on the Ohio/Michigan border in the 10-mile corridor contested in the Ohio & Michigan War. Ohioans laugh because we won "the war" with the loss of only one cow. Michiganders maintain they won because Ohio was forced to keep Toledo.

Canadian "sneering" is nothing more.

Well, at least it should have been a good idea to think about sueing the British, but when I remember correctly, even that wasn't carried out ... in the Canadian government.

My thoughts, too. There was obviously a design flaw.

Can't resist the nasty personal remark for very long, can you? I'm done with your horseshit, so you can talk to the wall for all the good it will do you to continue to address me.

Apparently another goat's been gotten ... :wink:

I wish I had a shiny quarter for each time you've chastized others for "nasty personal remarks" or actually forbidden others the privilege of addressing you ... I'd be positively quarter-laden.

For the record, I didn't address you. I posted comments on an Internet board pertaining to comments made on the same ... it's not like your telephone, you know. For the record, there was no malice intended in what I wrote, my comments were no worse than any you've made, and, IMHO, one should be prepared to receive that which one so readily shovels forth.

In the meantime, my horseshit and I have business elsewhere. Your perceived war will have to be waged minus this particular front.

Steve - you will, I trust, understand that lively discourse (as Tocqueville aptly observed during his visit to the U.S.) is an integral part of celebration here, as demonstrated by this latest free-for-all on your thread. Today we celebrated the Canadians and by anticipation also the French forthcoming holiday on July 14th, not to mention our own national holiday weekend starting about now for July 4th!

In case you and the other Brits here wish to complain that they feel left out of the bashing, I do, in fact, have a contribution - what on earth was Oscar Wilde thinking a century ago when he wrote:

"Of course Americans have antiquities - their navy and their manners."

Note to Setanta - yes I'm named for the one who launched a thousand ships but I know better than to contradict G OB on matters naval. I loved your pictures of the Canadian Navy ships, btw, and hope the country does eventually get a nuclear sub to be named - in the honor of the beautiful one you posted - Charybdis, or even two, the second to be called naturally Scylla. About my own manners - well, I try

Helen, Charybdis was one of the great white elephants of all time. She was sent over in 1881, as there was still a good deal of slitty-eyed suspicion of the Russians in Royal Navy circles. The imperialists were, of course, as pleased as punch. Most Canadians, however, if they thought about it at all, were rather more embarrassed. Basically, she sat along side at St. Johns, until a bad storm (a predictable occurance in those waters) drove her from her moorings and badly damaged commerical shipping. She was moved to Halifax, but when two curious citizens went out to have a look, they fell through some rotten planking, and she was given back to the Royal Navy in 1882 (having constituted the "Canadian navy" for a little more than a year) and finally scrapped. Mr. Milner aptly entitles his first chapter which begins with the arrival of Charybdis "Nobody's Baby."

Although John MacDonald was the Tory lion of Canadian political history and one of the two indispensible fathers of Dominion, the Liberals have generally controlled government. Following a pattern of alternating between Ontario and Québec for party leadership, it was Wilfrid Laurier who founded the true Royal Canadian Navy in 1910, much to the disgust of the Québecois, who have always been mistrustful of militarism and imperial ambitions. Called to the defense of their homeland, French militia have ceded nothing to any other Canadian, and have usually performed better than the detested Anglais. But they've never wanted any part of the Empires wars. At the time of the debates about the navy before the great war, Henri Bourassa, a very adroit politician who exploited demagoguery to the hilt, was incensed that "his" prime minister would knuckle under to the imperialists. He said:



Nevertheless, Laurier managed to push through a Navy bill, and although the discontent in French Canada helped to bring about his defeat by the Tory Borden, the Navy managed to gasp along, attacked by the Liberals, and neglected by the Tories, who paid lip service to imperialism before English-speaking audiences and promised the French that their sons would never be sent to fight in foreign wars.

Given the thin resources so often available to them, the RCN have done incredible service both to the Empire, and to the North Atlantic alliance. I have nothing but the greatest respect for their accomplishments, especially in the dark days of the Battle of the Atlantic.

It took me some substantial portion of a minute to roust up the necessary memories to verify that this is so. In celebration of such an august calendrical event I have downloaded a copy of Canada's totemic symbol and debased it in every manner imaginable (and my imagination is pretty darned active when it comes to debasing nationalist symbols) and then, finally, stuffing it tightly into the mouth of one of my many George Bush Flight Suit Action Figures (feet encased in a cute little cement block) and, under the moonlight and while playing Tom Waits 'Jesus Gonna Be Here Soon' on my boombox, reveling as the shebang sunk like a stone in the East River.

ps...we are really proud of our submarines in Canada. Especially me. It is a minor concern that we'll soon have to wage war against the evildoers of Bratislava who, by coincidence, control some 30% of the world's supply of baking soda.

Thank you Setanta for this historical overview - of which I humbly confess I knew nothing - and agreed that Canadians have done wonders with the resources available to them.

Look at the bright side - if there's any truth to global warming then there really is a Northern passage and they don't have to keep an east and west side navy:)

If sea levels rise sufficiently, their old silly, haunting fear of American invasion may come true, though.

Setanta - well if we get to pick individual invasion targets in case this happens >



> then the Edmonton country club (where I had to enter via the "ladies entrance" on the building's side, though admittedly not being able to walk away being escorted at the time by the Alberta premier and the general manager of the Fort McMurray heavy crude procesing plant) is spoken for - I'll invade that one

Link
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/scenarios/globalannualtemp2100

Goodbye from me until late July.

You'd be well advised to choose the prairies . . . as i mentioned, them French Canajuns, they get somethin' awful fierce in defense of their homes . . .

hoft

you gone

just when I thought......

Visit Offers Glimpse Into Guantanamo
By Don Shepperd

Friday, July 1, 2005; Posted: 8:44 p.m. EDT (00:44 GMT)

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- It was a quick trip, down and back; seven hours in a military jet, plus all day at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center -- 10 media military analysts, defense writers and think-tankers receiving briefings, visiting assigned personnel and watching interrogations.

The trip was put together in response to recent press reports of prisoner abuse at Gitmo. The Defense Department considers the criticism grossly unfair and mostly written by people who have never visited the "new" Camp Delta, which three years ago replaced Camp X-Ray.

One must understand something basic about Gitmo: In the middle of war, it isn't meant to replicate the U.S. justice system. Detained enemy combatants appear before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which sends detainees to Guantanamo only if there is real reason to believe they have important ties to the Taliban or al Qaeda. Each detainee has a hearing before an administrative review board at least once a year that recommends continued detention, release or transfer -- usually back to the country of origin.

Approximately 70,000 enemy combatants have been captured in the global war on terror. The vast majority have been released. About 800 have been sent to Gitmo with 235 set free, or transferred. An additional 61 await release. Gitmo is about keeping "the worst of the worst" off the battlefield until this war is over, collecting intelligence and subjecting criminal suspects to military commissions or "tribunals."

In a tribunal, the accused has access to legal representation. Detainees are not held incommunicado -- they are registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross and can send and receive mail -- or without rights. One may disagree with the adequacy, but there is a system designed to protect individual rights. One federal court agrees it's adequate, another disagrees. This is under review.

Guantanamo resembles a modern U.S. prison. Detainees get three meals daily. I ate a vegetarian meal consisting of garbanzos, corn, potatoes and pita bread. There is access to exercise areas and good medical care.

Interestingly, despite health problems and war wounds, no detainee has died at Gitmo. We observed four interrogations of "high-value targets" -- the really bad guys. We talked with interrogators who said mistreatment doesn't work and that only building good rapport with detainees garners useful information.

A classified briefing showed us intelligence information obtained on worldwide al Qaeda operations. Even after two or three years of internment, detainees still provide useful information.

Guards were a mixture of military police from all services. They're young kids, serious about their jobs and proud of what they were doing. Early allegations of mistreatment at Guantanamo and elsewhere were investigated, some substantiated and the guilty punished.

We saw no evidence of mistreatment, nor would one expect to on a planned visit. We didn't talk to detainees, rules prevent it, but the Red Cross does. They have unfettered access.

Did we drink the government "Kool-Aid?" I don't know. But when in doubt, I try to rely on common sense and my experience of almost 40 years in the military.

What I saw made sense: good, sincere, dedicated people doing what I would do in a tough situation. I am comforted. Keep it open. Keep a close watch on it. Guantanamo isn't a "Club Med," but it certainly isn't a "gulag."

Whooda, Nice report, but you can't white-wash what has already been shown to be abuse of prisoners by a one day visit. It's like any "inspection" if given notice that such and such will be visiting on such and such a day to inspect your facility. It's naive to think they don't prepare for visits by outsiders. Were they able to question the inmates freely - without supervision? I'll ramain skeptical, thank you.

I'm sure that's true to an extent, C.I., but the fact remains they're not detaining Boy Scouts down there.

Again:

"One must understand something basic about Gitmo: In the middle of war, it isn't meant to replicate the U.S. justice system. Detained enemy combatants appear before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which sends detainees to Guantanamo only if there is real reason to believe they have important ties to the Taliban or al Qaeda. Each detainee has a hearing before an administrative review board at least once a year that recommends continued detention, release or transfer -- usually back to the country of origin.

Approximately 70,000 enemy combatants have been captured in the global war on terror. The vast majority have been released. About 800 have been sent to Gitmo with 235 set free, or transferred. An additional 61 await release. Gitmo is about keeping "the worst of the worst" off the battlefield until this war is over, collecting intelligence and subjecting criminal suspects to military commissions or "tribunals."

Then why is Australian David Hicks still there?