An amusing analogy for America

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

………….America built the most powerful military in history, not to police the world, but in their own self interest. They wanted to be the biggest economic power, and made sure it stayed that way.

And?

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

………………….. You know what else we have? We have amazing access to raw resouces - your own Wallstreet boys nicknamed us "The Blue Eyed Arabs", Albertans called "Blue Eyed Sheiks"? We don't need to make crazy gamples on paper, our banks expect capital to support leveraging and no one gets away with 1-10.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

We've got the wold's largest uncut forests. We have huge deposits of natural gas. Saskatchewan is sitting on almost 1/2 the world's know reserves of uranium (clean, long-lasting nuclear power in the future). And almost 2/3 of the world's potash (fertilizer for food production). Between those two I think our economy will do just fine. We produce more alumuminum in this country than anywhere in the world - because we have relatively easy access to giant volumes of water. It takes ENORMOUS amounts of water to smelt aluminum - without aluminum how long until the American military machine grinds to a halt?

But it doesn't stop there for us:
hydro electric power (aka: lots of fast flowing rivers)
bauxile
copper
zinc
gold
oil
diamond
nickle

fresh water (it will be the world's oil in the 21st Century)

Pretty tempting stuff for marauders. Luckily that bigoted, inhumane war machine is on your southern boarder. Seriously. No one here really is saying we won the world wars alone. That’s ridiculous. No one is negating Canada or any other nation for that matter. Canada had a beach at Normandy. Canada beat the US to WWII. Americans had to go to Canada to up for the war. But, honestly, what did you expect when you passive aggressively call us a big dumb fucking dog?

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

……………….You take care of a world holding billions of people? You're in a crisis and your country is divided. You aren't even taking care of yourselves, never mind the rest of the world. Tired of giving the world a free ride? Stop the free ride. Take back your manufacturing, take back your IT industry, and everything else you've decided you no longer wanted to do on your own soil. Educate your people. Give them jobs. Give them a base line of health care they can afford that maintains human dignity, which is fundamental concept behind human rights. Unite yourselves a one people, with a common destiny, and mutual respect……………..

You couldn’t be more right if you tried. We’ve sold our jobs for a few pennies more. Shame on us.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

A nation in crisis screaming: The Jews control our government. Sound familiar? Your comment may seem harmless but it isn't. That's bigoted, hateful, intolerant - it leads to violence, gives people an excuse to devalue their lives. That once upon a time set into motion a genocide. Adolf Hilter argued that Jews controled the governments of the west, and the flow of money - look where it got the world.

No one said that, and you know it. Israel exists because the US and the UK put it there. It still exists today because they are among the best warriors in the world and because of the United States. I am a militant Zionist, but Israel is not going to keep Iran from their nuclear goal. The world community as a whole will.

Originally Posted by Camille

..........................Oliv ia, as to why England (and Germany particularly given they had an very strong currency) joined the EU it was primarily for market flexibility (fluid movement of goods/services/people)...we'd have been stuffed otherwise. W have certainly had to pay the price for that in other ways though such as adhering to the framework of the European Court of Human Rights. Being told we have to keep terrorists on our soil because it's not PC to send them back to their own country and see them killed is outrageous. It's a complex relationship as you pointed out that isn't easy to understand....

I guess. I understand getting along with your neighbors, but damn………….I don’t know why the UK, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, minus Hugo that is, and the US don’t form an oil coalition. Be our own collective super power. Strength in numbers and all that.

[John Bull]

Love you Lauren but there is no way to answer such a book in less than another book. Suffice it to say that I agree with much, disagree with some and again, marvel at your ability to marshall facts into reasonable arguments.

[ForumPoster]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I guess. I understand getting along with your neighbors, but damn………….I don’t know why the UK, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, minus Hugo that is, and the US don’t form an oil coalition. Be our own collective super power. Strength in numbers and all that.

Because it not in interest of certain businesses to have reasonable costs of oil and easy access to it.

Lina

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Go to Japan, ask how they feel about the continued US military presence.

.

Ok, let's do just that...***

Japan wants our military presence, they might not like where some bases are located but that is a far cry from implying that they do not covet our presence. If you do not understand that subtle difference then foreign policy might possibly , should not be your discussions of choice.
reread PJ post.

Indeed, under the world's only pacifist constitution, Japan spends about 1% of its gross domestic product on defense

***Hatoyama's fall suggests that despite the Japanese people's desire for a reduced U.S. military presence, they aren't ready to give up the protection it offers. "Hatoyama got into difficulty with the Japanese people because it was perceived that he was weakening the security of Japan," says Tom Schieffer, U.S. ambassador to Japan from 2005 to 2009

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1994798,00.html#ixzz15D fSftvL

US military presence crucial to balance of power in Asia
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1058034/1/.html

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Interestingly the same people who cannot laugh at any joke focused on their country have no problem insulting other countries or laughing at the expense of other nations. To expect a different standard for your own country than any other is where intolerance and bigotry begin.

I laugh at funny jokes.
We all have different perspectives on what is funny. My point was that if you come on a forum dominated by Americans you might want to be a bit more diplomatic in your humor towards said group. I wouldn't go in a room full of Mexicans and tell a immigration joke. Just like a Mexican might not think it wise to crack a Alamo joke in a room full of Texans.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Wow, that's quite the contradiction, and down right antisemitic nonsense. Now lets drift into the realm of logic when assessing a person's argument: If the US is Israel - then it isn't possible for them to have a frim grip on your politicians, is it? You can't have both. Either Israel exists, or you are Israel and have a firm grip on their politicians.

.

It is a very symbiotic relationship and my statement has nothing to do with anti-Semitic nonsense.

They do not control our government but they do have an overt amount of control in our ME foreign policy. Therefore my statement , though confusing to you is basically correct. We are Israel because of our support for them. Without it they would act quite differently.You do remember in the first war how they stood by while scud missles rained down on them? Who do you think told them to do so? Our support for them stems in part from the lobbying influence of American Jews in this country. If our interest ever change. . .

Again re

read PJ post.

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2...gn-policy.html

There are some mostly Jewish supporters of Israel who reflexively identify very personally with the idea that there is and should be a Jewish state in Palestine. Some of those friends of Israel perceive any expression of doubt in the justice of Israel's creation, existence or maintenance as attacks on them personally and attacks on Judaism in general. This feeling of attack leads to a sincere belief that the person who triggered this feeling hates Jews and is anti-Semitic. To a reader disposed to feel this way, I can only imagine that this essay will be perceived as claiming Jews have perniciously taken advantage of non-Jews. I'll say in advance that that is not my argument and not my belief. While I do not agree that there should be a Jewish state in Palestine, I do not mean that as an attack on the reader, the Jewish religion or the Jewish people of Israel

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

There is a joke in Canada (because we CAN laugh at jokes aimed at us) "When the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold".

Yes but Lauren, I think you are missing the point.
Of course nations rib one another about stupid stuff like that BUT the BIG difference in this instance is that it was a US Ambassador that said it...it wasn't about what what the general population of Canada think of the US. Apples and oranges. It's not indicative of the Americans lack of humour, rather a lack of sensitivity from someone that should know better. I'm sorry but I have a real issue with someone in such a position (past or present) making a statement like that. It makes me wonder if that's why she is a "former" ambassador too...

C

[Sa_artman]

Canada hasn't been great since Brian Adams. Take that.

[Clerkenwell]

Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Canada hasn't been great since Brian Adams. Take that.

Nor the USA since Liberace. He was a Marine, right?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Interestingly the same people who cannot laugh at any joke focused on their country have no problem insulting other countries or laughing at the expense of other nations.

Freedom Fries, anyone?

To expect a different standard for your own country than any other is....

We're Americans, Lauren. This is what we do.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

For all the bickering in this thread - those upset seem to forget that it was one if YOUR own citizens that created the analogy - and agreed with it. An ambassador stationed in the middle east no less.

Originally Posted by WTF

Some piss ant ambassador spouts off at a party. A stupid statement is a stupid statement no matter who says it.

Then he says:

No, it reflects on the country, we as individuals do not like outsiders talking shit. Every country has its own pride and prejudice, Nothing new there.

Oh brother.

I think this thread alone is entirely proving Lauren's points.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Doove

We're Americans, Lauren. This is what we do.

Actually, Doove, so is Lauren, as are all peoples of the Western Hemisphere. North America...Central America...South America. Get it? It's the main reason that Border Patrol had to switch from asking people "Are you American?" to "Are you a US citizen?" People who were citizens of countries other than the US could honestly answer "yes" to the former question.

It's pretty damn egotistical to think the term "American" refers only to the US.

And when I read Lauren's OP, I thought, "this is another example of a bull in a china shop." The US has a long history of this kind of conduct. If you want recent history, go back about 50 years and read "The Ugly American."

And it's pretty paternalistic of the US to believe that it knows best for the rest of the world. Apparently, we haven't learned many lessons. Other nations have the right to self-determination and to control their own destiny w/o interference from the US as long as they don't interfere with the US. But the US continually violates that precept, and uses false reasons to do so.

Had the US stuck to taking care of it's own business, quite likely it wouldn't be in the current financial mess. Think of (literally) billions the US would have saved had it not carried on 3-4 wars in the Middle East. And this isn't limited to the Bush/Obama administrations. Clinton did a couple of military actions himself.

IMHO, to say that the World Trade Center attack was an attack by a foreign nation was specious at best. It was a criminal act b/c it was not done by a foreign nation, but rather by criminal terrorists. And this isn't the first time in history that terrorists banded together in a joint effort to commit criminal acts. Actually, a similar example is Timothy McVeigh and his terrorist group, but quite rightly, the US kept the response on the criminal law side of things. Invading other countries based on the WTC was an inappropriate abuse of the US's war power.

[Clerkenwell]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

IMHO, to say that the World Trade Center attack was an attack by a foreign nation was specious at best. It was a criminal act b/c it was not done by a foreign nation, but rather by criminal terrorists. And this isn't the first time in history that terrorists banded together in a joint effort to commit criminal acts. Actually, a similar example is Timothy McVeigh and his terrorist group, but quite rightly, the US kept the response on the criminal law side of things. Invading other countries based on the WTC was an inappropriate abuse of the US's war power.

Three cheers for cool, penetrating analysis.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Doove

I think this thread alone is entirely proving Lauren's points.

Yea but we already knew that she despises this country Trying to shift that loathing and coyly blaming it onto some horny ambassador trying to curry favor for a pass in her pants just reaffirms her past posting in that regard . . . or was it a clever way to work in a mention of her meeting an ambassador, or a bit of both. I say we ask Leah!


Lastly Doove, if you want to discuss reasonably the flaw in her or your argument, reread PJ's post. Ever country acts in their own best interest. For Canadians not even to be aware of their own paltry Defense expenditures (and the huge societal benefit/cost saving that bestowed them) mostly made possible by our huge outlays during the Cold War and beyond not only shows a lack of history but a lack of geography as Russia is a stone throw away from our northern neighbor. If you two want to make the case that you would/will have been better off aliened with Russia, go ahead. It would be an interesting exercise in what if's.

For those who may not understand how may American Ambassadors “earn” those positions, read the link below. Their credentials on foreign affairs are iffy at best.



http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirl...er_for_fi.html

For those few of you who may not know, around 30 percent of American Ambassadors “earn” those positions through patronage. They buy these usually cushy European, Canadian and Caribbean posts by contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Presidential candidate’s election bid. It used to be that the spare change came out of an individual’s pocket, but more recently the key has been successful campaign fund-raising among the party faithful. George Mascolo’s “Embassies for Sale: Want to Become Bush’s Next Ambassador?” in the June 27 Der Spiegel reminded me once again of the pitfalls of this quaint, largely made-in-the USA custom

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

Three cheers for cool, penetrating analysis.

We went to war over control over oil, nothing new there. Did we use the 9/11 attacks as fodder? Yes of course we did. But that is a far cry from being a bull in a china cabinet. That is taking ever opportunity presented to advance what you believe to be your countries best interest.

If some ignorant ambassador thinks that is being a bull in a china cabinet or a puppy then he and those that believe such nonsense are not to hip to the the stage of: stated facts and facts.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I was at a private talk discussing the problem of a nuclear armed Iran, and the delicacies surrounding it's prevention.

She explained that Europe was terrified of how America would handle this. Europe looks at America like a Lab puppy in a crowded room: they get an idea that excites them, wagging their tail, obliviously knocking things over and annoying people around them. The enthusiasm makes everyone nervous, as they think decisions should be carefully thought over, and action taken in increments.

Whether true or not, I thought it was pretty funny.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

The peron making this comment was a US ambassador. I made no comment about my opinion of the US or the Iranian situation. Only the I heard a funny metaphor.

Frankly, my hope lies in Israel.

Originally Posted by WTF

Yea but we already knew that she despises this country Trying to shift that loathing and coyly blaming it onto some horny ambassador trying to curry favor for a pass in her pants just reaffirms her past posting in that regard . . . or was it a clever way to work in a mention of her meeting an ambassador, or a bit of both. I say we ask Leah!

For those who may not understand how may American Ambassadors “earn” those positions, read the link below. Their credentials on foreign affairs are iffy at best.

First of all, WTF, I disagree that Lauren despises the US. I think she enjoys the US. But, as with most non-US citizens in the world she has definite opinions about the appropriate and non-appropriate conduct in which the US engages. Certainly, you wouldn't take the position the US is always right in everything the US does?

Second, I think you glossed over the fact that the ambassador was a female, so it's questionable whether or not getting in Lauren's pants was an issue.

Third, I agree with you about the questionable aspect of "ambassadors'" credentials. Most are appointed as a political "thankyou" for contributing to the president's campaign. Having said that, I not naive enough to think that all ambassadors are ignorant. Some are quite talented (though it may be a definite minority). Without knowing who it was it is difficult to say. However, I would never find myself defending the US as NEVER being a bull in a china shop. I think, more often than not, it is.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by WTF

We went to war over control over oil, nothing new there. Did we use the 9/11 attacks as fodder? Yes of course we did. But that is a far cry from being a bull in a china cabinet. That is taking ever opportunity presented to advance what you believe to be your countries best interest.

There is some serious denial at work in that statement.

And by the way, pick a font and stick with it.