New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#3951 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-29 11:35:28
Part of the Varsaw Pact, that's an important nuance escaping you, the polish administration relied on communist polishes, nobody told them, "now, you're no more Polishes, you're Russians", that's very different from Estonia, Latvia, lettonia, where Russians are now subcitizens, most of them were just ordinary peoples, not leaders.
France could have been in the same boat you know. Remember the Vichy government that ruled part of France on Germany's behalf? It made no difference to the French Jews deported to Auchwitz, that it was French Police that were rounding them up and stuffing them on the train to be deported to the gas chambers and crematoriums of Auchwitz and other Death camps in Poland and Germany. The Polish government under the Warsaw pact was sort of like a Vichy government run by the Soviets, they appointed their favorite Poles to run Polaned for them, and then staged a bogus election without competiton to legitimize them. And you say that all Poles should be concerned about is whether the person ruling over them was born in Poland and whether the Soviets gave him a free hand to rule as he likes. That is what I call a fig leaf or more specifically a Quisling. the United States could have done the same with France after we pushed out the Germans, but we didn't, that establishes the difference between us and the Warsaw pact.
When you say I deny the rights of peoples, it' a complete mistake, it means you don't understand, I try to see in details which are each country interests and politics, before claiming which are the bad guys.
You mean the Germans weren't Evil when they deported French Jews from your contry to be exterminated? If you were a French Jew on the train to one of the camps, would you try very hard to understand your enemy and why he is doing what he was doing?
The Polishes had too their historic period where they dominated their neighbourhood, the Russians weren't alone to attack Poland, independance of Poland doesn't avoid firing Gdansk shipbuilding workers which did so much for the independence of Poland. And now, Poland is part of Europe, Russia doesn't threaten them anymore.
Want to bet? What Russia does in Georgia and the Ukraine establishes a precident for what Russia may try to do to them in the future. If Poland says nothing abot Georgia, Poland may be next on their list, they are not first on their list, but as Russia works its way down its list of former Soviet and Russian possessions, it gets closer to Poland. France is nice and safe and cozy on the Atlantic coast, so it is not as much concerned, and Poles are concerned that Nations like France might make an offering of Poland to Russia in order to buy a few more years of peace with the Russians. Few poles really think seriously about French Soldiers putting their lives on the line to defend Poland, the events of World War II disabused them of that notion.
In Georgia as well in some former USSR dominated countries, there are russian minorities which are now mistreated, in Georgia as well as in baltic countries.
You mean like "Sudetenland Russians"? German minorities on other countries were excuses for Hitler to invade, and suddenly Putin has become so "concerned" for Russian minorities in neighboring countries just outside Russia's borders. Perhaps Geogia ought to allieviate thse concerns by kicking those minorities out of Georgia. If the minorities aren't around to be abused, then they can't be. Its not their fault mind you, its just that George can't afford to allow them to remain if Putin is going to use them as an excuse to invade or support insurents within Georgia to split off territory and annex it to Russia. Too bad the Russian minorities get caught in the middle, they don't necessarily like Putin, but that is geopolitics, it would be wise for the Georgian leader to expel them, if they don't like being Georgians. You french can take an example from this and do something about the muslim minorities that are currently making a habit of burning Paris. If they don't want to really be French, they should say good bye to France and hello to the Middle East or North Africa.
But when the Polishes want to make of Europe a "christiandom", in France we don't like to mix politics with religious convictions, we oppose them.
The muslim minority in your country wants to mix politics with religion and traditionally they have always done so. They want Islam to fill the vacuum you have created.
When you say that Putin tries to undermine US influence, the opposite is true, but the point is that the best US influence underminer is at White House.
Since he's there, the US influence on the world has reached a historic law, under Clinton, we would be friendly arguing, now we have hostile arguments about which of our countries practiced slavery the last one or mistreats its minorities, you and me.
It would be quite the same with many, like the Spanishes which say that without Bush and Aznar's alignment on Bush's Iraq policy, Madrid wouln't have been terrorist attacked
That's what we call "Blame the victim" in the states. You could similarly blame the French Jews and the French government's refusal to hand them over to the Germans for the German invasion. We are being attacked, it is not our fault that our attackers may attack someone else they feel may be aligned to us if their primary target is us. the above argument youstate above is a sumbissive argument, the argument goes that Spain has not been properly submissive to the Islamic Terrorists, and thus that is why the terrorist attack happened. Islam runs alot of third world countries, I don't see whay they are qualified to run the first world or should be allowed to conquer Europe when they run their own countries so incompetantly.
Now if France is going to be hypercritical of the USA, it should also pay attention to what Russia is doing, or else it is being.
hypocritical.I' not France...
Russia is an obsolescent country which administration has been corrupted, infiltrated by russian mafiosis, if not a Putin, it could be worse than right now.
When former socialists turn to nationalism, you know what it gives, national-socialism...The "War on Terrorism" choosing Iraq as a battlefield hasn't improved security for Iraqis nor for the rest of the world.
Right now, because of the US Army being Iraq mud trapped, nobody knows how to withdraw properly, USA has lost prestige, power of deterrence, be on Iran, or North Korea or Sudan and so on, is hatred in most of the muslim world, latin american leaders campaign on anti-americanism, make friend with Castro rather than Bush, these are the facts !
And we can make them sorry they did so!
Facing facts, you can either stay unchanged and to keep the comfortable idea that your're all good and the others all bad, making the case for preemptive wars or open your eyes and realize that you or I are not much better than anybody else, here, I've just a more acuratate knowledge of europeans afffairs, I've been to Berlin before the falling of the wall, I've travelled in Europe, Northern Africa, Center Africa, I can name 95% of countries on a deaf map
I can tell that your democracy allowing a president to be elected with fewer voices than his opponent ceased to look sexy to the world opinion, as well as your "values" is we don't even really agree on, if they keep being those of the conservatives, no thanks!
Yes, we try to conserve democracy and freedom, freedom of speech and religion, things that radicals want to throw out the window in their social experiments, that serve nothing except to help them amass power.
It's not a matter of Reps or Dems, of anti-americanism, we still stand with the highest respect for President Eisenhower, but compared with Bush, on all the matters, Eisenhower was the day, Bush is the night
The "Bush" you talk about is in part fiction, it doesn't have much to do with the real person who occupies the White House. You should look at other places in the world, not just Bush as the cause of all its troubles.
Whatever has George Bush done to your country of France/ Has he ever done as much as Hitler has? Most of your objections seem to stem from him having different values from your own, that is no reason to hate him. Their are other people in the world who represent direct threats to France, perhaps you ought to be paying more attention to them, rather than focus on Bush all the time. This is not your country after all, what business is it of yours to tell Bush how he should run the United States Government. if we don't have Universal Health care, that is certainly not your concern in France.
#3952 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-29 10:54:44
Look at what he's saying cindy, he's calling George Bush a Stalinist! I know for a fact that Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Russians, he is second only to Chairman Mao in Mass-murders, Hitler comes in third, although he specifically targeted Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and Communists. My distrust of people who come from radical Islamic Regimes stems from the fact that I do not know them, and I do not wish to take a chance on them being terrorists. The Islamic world is all messed up, with radicals everywhere trying to blow things up and terrorising the civilians, and they have governments egging them on. I'd like to contain that contageon, just like I would if a mutant Ebola Crisis was running rampant through out the Third World. I wouldn't want my country giving refuge to those people trying to escape the Ebola virus and risk the possibility that they might bring Ebola with them and thus endanger American citizens. I sort of feel that maybe Canadians wouldn't be as concerned about Radical Islamic Fundamentalists getting in their country, because they are targeting Americans and not them. If we are not allowed to stop these people at Canada's borders then we certainly will stop them at our own.
As for the CIA prisons, we had POW camps in World War II, we held German prisoners of War without trial until the end of the War, Canada operated them, Great Britian operated them too. None of those POWs received trials unless they commited war crimes, otherwise they were simply held so that our soldiers would not have to fight them again. RobetDyck has expressed so much concern for the enemy, not the Iraqi civilians so much, but for the enemy combatants that are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike. What Robert mixes together are allegations and facts. An enemy prisoner of war will allege that he's been tortured by his guards, why shouldn't he? just because a terrorist combattant says he's been tortured, doesn't mean that he has. Just imagine that your one of the Prisoner's guards, and you treat your prisoners fairly and do not torture them. then a reporter comes in and your prisoners tell the reporter how you've tortured them, how you put women's underwear on their heads, sat them on a stool and spun them around while you flushed their Koran down the toilet. You say, no you didn't do that, and the reporter says, "sure, sure, you would deny it. If you'd really done stuff like that I wouldn't expect you to confess." So basically the reporter reports that the Prisoner was tortured and that you the guards deny it, sounds like the governments covering up doesn't it? All this misbehavior is attributed to corruption and the only way to stop it is to shut this facility down. The US government should stop denying that these things happen. etc etc.
But have you considered what if the guards really haven't done anything, and that they aren't denying that they did something and really didn't do something and that the prisoners were making stuff up. It certainly works to demoralize the enemy to make accusations and have the American press run them as if they were facts. The truth is, the News Media is not a fair and unbiased jury. People like RobertDyck want those guards to be guilty of torture, and their are people just like him in the left leaning news media. If some prisoner says he has been tortured, the newsmedia will report that the US is torturing prisoners. And what do I know about the CBC documentary. Other foreign news agencies have reported lies aboput American forces while we fought other wars, why should we trust a news media from a foreign country that has an axe to grind with us about the Iraqi War? The German News Media called our President Franklin Rosenfelt, and said he was a Jew, when we fought them during World War II. I've noted numerous accounts where the News media just makes stuff up just to get the President. In many accounts the Media has been blatantly biased against the Republican party and produces favorable reporting on the Democrats, boosting this Obama character, simply because they think he is more electable against a Republican opponent that would Hillary Clinton. For me, it is just too soon after the 9/11 attack to have a US President that has a name that rhymes with Osama. I don't really want to see any muslim or Arbic folk in our nations high public offices while were fighting Islamic radicals, I've seen what they can do when they get into other countries governments, if that's discrimination, too bad, the stakes are simply too high to trust them with such high public offices.
A frequent saying in the US is "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". The government wants you to forget what that means; it doesn't refer to any exterior threat, it refers to abuse of authority within the government.
The government is the only tool we have to fight the external threat, that is what I don't get about the Liberals, they are always so concerned about everybody else except American citizens, they worry about the Enemy combatants, they worry about foreign civilians when ever they think they might be harmed by American forces, but they don't worry about them if they may be harmed by their own regime. Liberals want to make the World save from the United States government, as if that's they only threat, what they are not concerned about is making the united States safe from threats existing out in the world. They try to weaken the government as much as they can so they can be sure the CIA is not spying on them, and while they do so they rob the government of the tools it needs to protect us from these foreign threats. One tool that Robert object so strongly to is the American border. Putin is the greater threat, he's the one that's really curtailing his citizens freedoms, but since he's not American, he doesn't draw much Liberal fire for what he's doing, everyone is concentrating on George Bush as if he was the greatest threat since Joseph Stalin, and Chairman Mao, to freedom. Robert thinks that if we just look inward, the rest of the world will not bother us and just disappear while we try to solve out domestic problems.
#3953 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-28 11:44:40
When you post, it's really representative of that narrow mind
Disregarding who said that and to whom, I'd like to say something. Too often standing for/believing in something is equated with "a narrow mind." And by the same token being "open-minded" is often mistaken for spineless passivity.
We need to be careful not to make these mistakes.
Its a fuzzy universe we live in, there are no hard and fast rules. I try to keep an open mind about most things I'm not very knowledgeable about, i'm a bit more conservative over things I know more about. I don't believe socialism works very well, it is a waste of money at best and a source of tyranny and oppression at worst, what it achieves is greatly overshadowed by what it costs society. I don't entertain UFO conspiracy theories. I also don't entertain conspiracy theories about America being this great big evil awful Empire that causes all the misery in the world. I think the evidence is clear that Putin is being a dictator, and opposition groups in his country are being oppressed. I think it is wrong that liberals like to completely focus on George Bush as teh great evil in the world while completely ignoring the dirty dealings of a real dictator such as Putin. It their is anyone who's using the War on Terrorism to justify curtailing civil rights in his country, that would be Vladimir Putin. So if your going to vilify Bush for supposedly allowing US troops to flush a Koran down a toilet and performing sex acts in front of unlawful combatants, then some attention must also be paid to the overt Imperialistic policies of the Russian Empire towards its neighboring states.
It is franky insulting that DonPanic denigrates the national aspirations of the post Soviet successor states, calling them just part of Russia. I have a wife who's from Poland, depending on certain definitions, her country was also once part of Russia, I'm not only talking about when it was a Warsaw Pact puppet state, but also when Poland was partitioned by Russia, Germany, and Austria in the 18th centuries. If Georgia doesn't have rights to independent statehood, then the argument could extend to Poland as well, and make no mistake, Poles are not Russians! Russia doesn't have a right to an Empire, it gave that empire up voluntarily, and Russia should mind its own business and worry about itself. I'm willing to accept the current borders of Russia, I don't think it should be expanded. Now if France is going to be hypercritical of the USA, it should also pay attention to what Russia is doing, or else it is being hypocritical.
#3954 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Warp Drive » 2006-10-28 11:24:52
Those would be scientific strides only for the people who went back in time and did it again. As seen from the timeline he departed from, he would just seem to disappear forever. For the alternate timeline he created, he would appear from nowhere from a fictional future timeline that is no longer valid. Both timelines would probably continue to exist side by side, one in which the time traveller left for the journey into the past and the other where the time traveller arrived froma future that is no longer valid. Their is no benefit to the society that builds the time machine as all its good for is making the time traveller diasappear.
#3955 Re: Human missions » Newt Gingrich - Space President? » 2006-10-28 09:48:21
Finally, a good point rather than someone ranting on about North Korea, an important issue no doubt, but it has nothing to do with space police.
VSE, what's that? I'm not very good with acronyms, could someone spell it out for me? NASA has been launching the Shuttle for a while, I always get the feeling that it could have been doing something else during that time. I always felt that NASA was supposed to be a space exploration agency, and not a space transportation agency. The Shuttle has eaten the bulk of NASA's budget in operating expenses, it is not very efficient, and because it costs so much to operate, there is little money left over for manned space endeavours beyond low Earth orbit. We could build a follow on vehicle either, again because the shuttle's operating expenses took the lion's share of the budget.
#3956 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-27 08:54:27
You know what ? As long as you have Bush in power, I like Putin better, is that clear to you ?
I know that Putin is a Facist in the same mold as Mussilini, his rise to power has an eerie resemblenced to Hitler's. Putin had his own "enabling acts" and he used an attack on an elementary school as an excuse to solidify his grip on power and appoint the governors of the Russian States taking away the rights of the Russian people to elect them, he has taxed the free press intio submission until the ones that are left are only the ones that reflect the official state line. I doubt whether you'd be pleased if George Bush became a dictator like Putin, because if he did, he could ignor public opinion and control the press just like Putin does. There'd be no CNN, no MSNBC, no New York Times, they'd all be taxed or harassed out of business by the Federal government.
Putin has to fight Chechens which are tough terrorists allied with AlQaeda, has to set a stronghold on the southern borders where former USSR republics are muslims where fundy islamists are very active.
Georgia is not a Muslim state, the fact that it was the birthplace of Stalin is also irrelevant. If Putin is trying to fight terrorism, he sure has a funny way of showing it, trying to help Iran get a nuclear bomb for instance. Iran is a well know terrorist state. Its no wonder the Russian NAtional Symbol is a two-headed eagle, or shall we say two faced? Putin has been most interested in fighting the terrorists that are bothering the Russian people, and only then as a further excuse to justify further concentration of political power in his hands. The United States doesn't need a dictator to fight terrorism, why should Russia?
If you pretend to be at war at terrorism, then you should be glad to ally to Putin rather than do what the US does, trying to weaken Russia.
Where'd you get that from? 72 years of communism has weakend Russia! I don't think the Bolshevik Revolution was an American plot. Boris Yeltsin has given those former Soviet Republics their independence, they are independent countries now, When we speak of Russia, we are talking about theFederated Republic of Russia. Georgia is not part of Russia, neither is Ukraine, some of them speak Russian just like some Quebequois speak French, does that mean France should attack Canada?
It is sad to see a French person like you supporting dictators, France has had a long and ignoble history with dictators, starting with Napoleon, and Napoleon II. The original French Revolution was about the rights of the people, so how can the people have rights if they don't get to choose their own government on a regular basis? Does democracy mean so little to you that you'd flock to the banner of the nearest dictator, just as long as he is not American?
When you refer to hystory, don't spread your ignorance, Napoleon I was a dictator, but nothing similar to Hitler, he never was a racist, had black officers in his army, never made anything like a concentration camp.
Wasn't racist eh? Ever hear of a place called Haiti, it was the locale of a massive slave rebellion, black slaves in fact. In the aftermath of the French Revolution, those black slaves were not freed and given their rights of Man, under Napoleon, those slaves weren't freed either. The Haitians had to overthrow their masters and free themselves, this was a French colony after all, those blacks had to free themselves from the oppression under the rule of the French Empire under Napoleon. I think keeping black slaves and not white slaves is a rather racist thing. Napoleon wasn't as cruel as Hitler, few people are, but he was a dictator, and as a general rule, I don't trust dictators. I would rather not have dictators where we don't have to have them, and so far, fighting terrorism is no excuse for dictatorship. What George Bush has done to fight terrorism hasn't come close to what Putin has done to concentrate power in his hands in the name of fighting terrorism. If you haven't noticed Putin is not being badgered by the Russian Press the way George Bush is by the American Press, that is because Putin controls the Russian Press, while George Bush does not control the American Press. We fight terrorism, but we don't resort to the "emergency measures" Putin has resorted to in order to "fight terrorism". When you compare the two Administrations, I'd say George Bush has done a much more effective job in fighting terrorism than Putin has, Putin is mainly concerned with amassing power and undermining American influence in the World, and fighting terrorism comes in as a distant second. Putin seems more willing to use terrorism as a club to undermine American influence and its ability to fight terrorism. Putin is effectively still fighting the Cold War, but instead of fighting under the banner of International Communism, he is fighting under the one of Russian Imperialism and the Double Eagle.
We didn't have a Napoleon II, he died in South Africa, Napoleon III let the press as free as can be, never satirical press have been as cruel as under its regime, and he let it go.
Bush's the guy which brought distrust between USA and France, when we warned that attacking Iraq would set a mess in the country and around. I hate him as well as all of the cons, as do 80% of the froggies.
You still haven't explained why you hate him, just because he wouldn't listen to your country's leader's advice. Do I have to remind you that France doesn't have a Dog in this fight in Iraq, no French Troops are being threatened, it is American troops who are. George bush can heed Chiracs advice or ignore it. His concern is for winning the War in Iraq. I don't think this is cause for Hatred, George Bush has not attacked France. The Germans and Russians have done worse things to France than George Bush has done.
Ukrain and Russia speak russian. Georgia ? Stalin was a georgian.
so, this is a kind of inner problem between states which were united before.
It's quite similar as if I would poke my nose in US affairs ifever a state like California or Texas would try to separate from USA. In these affairs the US are pokenoses.So you support Russian Imperialism instead of the American brand, how are the two different? We didn't "liberate" any of our 50 states and then go back on our word and try to retake them by force!
No, there have never been any secession war, if must have been a hoax...
We didn't liberate any of the Confederate States of the South, they rebelled, and we cruched them after 4 years of hard fighting, we did not grant them their independence and then reneg on it, although the Democrats at that time wanted to recognise the Confederate States of America as an Independent country.
If Bush is "the American brand", this is torture legalized, all western Europe rejects the image of this Guantanamo's and Abu Ghraib's America
I'm sad that we cooperate with Russia, China and India in space activities rather than with NASA, but that's a consequence of the Bush go alone attitude.
We want to go in space, have a world ruled with cooperative partners, not under such a narrow minded US mastership
You focus on such narrow and trivial issues, how does that compare with Putin's Imperialism? The so called torture involves such things as Allegidly flushing a Koran down the toilet. Now why would the guards do that, you know a koran flush down the toilet would clog it, and then they would have to call plumber to fix it. Another form of "torture" was US Guards performing racy sex acts with each other in from of captive prisoners, something that should not have been done, but clearly not torture. I guess what goes on in those French Porn shops are also torture too. I thought French people had a more progressive attutide than that.
When you post, it's really representative of that narrow mind, you can argue only with your own point of view, with arguments that fails because they don't have any value for whom you try to convince. When I see how Bush or Rice try to get support from the Arabs, I'm appalled with such an ignorance of the arab mentallity and traditions. Why do you think that Villepin was standing ovationned by the UNO security council and not Colin Powell ?
And Arab traditions are much closer to the Frenchj ideals of liberation, equality, and fraternity? When exactly did your country give up on those ideals? It is those ideals that we are trying to pursue in Iraq.
Just because there was a man speaking after some kind of a computer repport.
What you say can just convince a Kansas'cowboy
If I can convince a Kansas Cowboy, that is certainly a start.
#3957 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-26 17:46:57
Putin is a dictator interested in expanding his Empire. Do you want to help him expand it at other nation's expense, namely those surrounding ones like Georgia, and Ukraine for instance. Do you feel safe that Germany, Poland and Ukraine is in between you and Russia? How many of those countries do you want to feed to Russia before Russia is on your border? Putin's goals are rather clear, he wants to expand his borders and conquer other nations, why would you want to deal with a man like that?
You know what ? As long as you have Bush in power, I like Putin better, is that clear to you ?
I know that Putin is a Facist in the same mold as Mussilini, his rise to power has an eerie resemblenced to Hitler's. Putin had his own "enabling acts" and he used an attack on an elementary school as an excuse to solidify his grip on power and appoint the governors of the Russian States taking away the rights of the Russian people to elect them, he has taxed the free press intio submission until the ones that are left are only the ones that reflect the official state line. I doubt whether you'd be pleased if George Bush became a dictator like Putin, because if he did, he could ignor public opinion and control the press just like Putin does. There'd be no CNN, no MSNBC, no New York Times, they'd all be taxed or harassed out of business by the Federal government.
It is sad to see a French person like you supporting dictators, France has had a long and ignoble history with dictators, starting with Napoleon, and Napoleon II. The original French Revolution was about the rights of the people, so how can the people have rights if they don't get to choose their own government on a regular basis? Does democracy mean so little to you that you'd flock to the banner of the nearest dictator, just as long as he is not American?
Bush's the guy which brought distrust between USA and France, when we warned that attacking Iraq would set a mess in the country and around. I hate him as well as all of the cons, as do 80% of the froggies.
Ukrain and Russia speak russian. Georgia ? Stalin was a georgian.
so, this is a kind of inner problem between states which were united before.
It's quite similar as if I would poke my nose in US affairs ifever a state like California or Texas would try to separate from USA. In these affairs the US are pokenoses.
So you support Russian Imperialism instead of the American brand, how are the two different? We didn't "liberate" any of our 50 states and then go back on our word and try to retake them by force!
So if you support Georgia's forced absorption into the Russian Empire, does that also mean that you'd support Germany's annexing of Austria, and Switzerland, and maybe take some parts of France that were historically once German while they were at it. What your advocating could have serious consequences for France, and may give the Germans some ideas too. How do you like that kettle of fish?
#3958 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-26 13:51:17
I wrote a long reply last night, but when I hit "Submit" I just got a log-in window. The entire message was lost. I'm not going to write the whole thing again, I can't, but a couple points:
Tom, you've gotten the lovely Cindy upset with me. Shame on you!Don't think the Conservative party in Canada will be any easier to work with. They want to arm Canadian customs guards. The excuse they keep coming up with is the case when an American was asked if he has a gun. His response was to point the gun at the customs officer and say "Yes, and what are you going to do about it? I guess I'm going in, aren't I." The Conservatives want to arm border guards to stop armed Americans. I argued that this was just one case with one individual, it rarely happens. That case is best dealt with by sending an RCMP officer after him, they're all armed.
Yesterday I talked on the phone to a co-worker who lives in Seattle. He moved to Winnipeg in 1990, and read about our jump in crime. The papers talked about how house break-and-enters doubled that year (actually over the prior 3 years), car theft tripled, and murders went way up. The media called Winnipeg the murder capital of Canada, they said that year we had the highest per-capita murder rate in the country. My co-worker looked for numbers to back this up, only fund one number at the bottom of the article. Winnipeg had 17 murders that year, in a city of 632,000 people. He just came from Redmond California that had 170 murders in a city of 67,000 people. He felt quite safe.
If you believe the propaganda about Canadian immigration being lax, then read the case of Maher Arar. He's an immigrant from Syria who lived in Canada so long he's a citizen. When travelling to the US he was arrested by American officials and deported to Syria. He travelled with a Canadian passport so Canada insisted he be sent to Canada, not Syria; American officials ignored the demand. He was tortured in Syria. He wasn't a criminal, he didn't terrorise anyone. He and others like him are those admitted with Canada's "lax" policies.
How do you know that he wasn't a terrorist? Just because Syria tortures him doesn't make him innocent. I'm sure the US Government doesn't arrest every single Muslim or Arab that steps across the border from Canada to the US, they must have some criteria they use to arrest one man but not arrest another, there must have been something suspicious about him in the first place for them to make the arrest. Syria is not an ally of ours, it is a terrorist state, and I'm going to be very suspecious of anyone who comes from Iran, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, North Korea, or the Sudan. People who come from unfriendly countries are suspect. I'd rather receive immigrants from somewhere else, thank you very much.
If you don't want Canadians getting upset with you, then don't believe the propaganda that terrorists are coming from Canada. The Bush administration is using scare tactics to get Americans accept loosing their freedoms in favour of a Stalinist form of authoritarian government. I'm amazed you're falling for it, but it's your country. The bottom line is don't blame Canada.
Calling George Bush a Stalinist is propaganda in the extreme, this bears no relation to reality Has George Bush Purged anyone for instance? Did he deliberately starve anyone and kill 20 million people in a man-made famine?
I don't think so. If you don't like propaganda, then why don't you stop using it yourself? George Bush is also not a central planner, he doesn't have government take over whole industries and run them into the ground. It undermines your credibility when you call people Stalinists when they aren't actually Stalinists.
#3959 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-26 13:35:19
France is making the same mistake with Putin as it did with Hitler. What is Putin but a megalomaniac dictator. Look at the history of Hitler's rise to power and now see what Putin is doing to gain the levers of power in his country. Russia is a bigger power than Germany, and look what he's doing to ethnic Georgians in Russia!
We don't fear Putin, WWII was enough, we've got the lesson, with about the most silent and up to date strategic nuclear subs in the world, able to lie low by -13500 feet depth, with special "skin" to absorb sonar signals, each of them with 96 manoeuverable nuclear warheads plus gulls, able to chrush any ennemy in second strike, dozens of neutrons nuke tactical cruise missiles, I really don't think that Putin's Russia wants to threaten France. Our strategic force units are in small number, but with a top maintenance. Nuclear reentry warheads have aleatory trajectories in order to trick antimissiles. Do you have more good advices for us ?
And some mistake of yours, Germany and France have each actually more industrial power than Russia, we've bought half of the Soyuz production via ArianeEspace to be launched from the Kourou spaceport, for instance. Putin prefers to cooperate.
Putin is a dictator interested in expanding his Empire. Do you want to help him expand it at other nation's expense, namely those surrounding ones like Georgia, and Ukraine for instance. Do you feel safe that Germany, Poland and Ukraine is in between you and Russia? How many of those countries do you want to feed to Russia before Russia is on your border? Putin's goals are rather clear, he wants to expand his borders and conquer other nations, why would you want to deal with a man like that?
#3960 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-10-25 13:04:12
Torture is wrong, period. How would any of you like to be at the mercy of a torturer? Just imagine it for a minute, an hour, day and night, with no assurance of intervention ... that's hell on Earth! I'd sing, convert, admit to anything, if only to be out of the clutches of such a regime. And I'd devote my life to getting even with the individule or organization responsible for my suffering. But I'd never torture them--only liquidate them quickly and painlessly, and feel no remorse. I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding those "we" torture.
McCain: Guantanamo has hurt our image abroad
http://www.azcongresswatch.com/?p=2263
Bad reporting and Media Fabrications have hurt our image. The Koran flushing incident for instance.
#3961 Re: Not So Free Chat » Froggy's » 2006-10-25 13:02:06
I don't happen to be an energy pessimist, like some other GreenPeace Environmental types. I think instead of trying to prepare society for less energy that is going to be available in the future, we should prepare alternative sources of energy.
#3962 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-25 12:57:10
I'm not saying that France or Canada should start arming their citizens, run your countries however you see fit. But don't tell us how to run ours. I don't say this lightly, carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility that not everyone is ready for. Even I didn't realize that fully until faced with the imminent prospect of being granted authority by my state government to do so for the purpose of protecting myself and others from death or grievous bodily harm. You can't flip off the guy that cuts you off in traffic anymore, you can't let combative drunk assholes draw you into a confrontation anymore. You have to turn the other cheek on the little things because when it really matters, you have the power to kill another person who is intent on inflicting irreperable harm on another.
Well, just ask the policemen wether they prefer gun control or not. I suppose that they would be more relax if they new that no driver have any gun.
If everyone obeyed the laws, there would be no need for Police Officers. If a Police Officer's job gets easier, there will be fewer of them hired; if it gets tougher, there will be more of them hired, in the end it all balances out, and so its a wash for those people who happen to be Police officers. The more police officers, the more the spread the risks, the less police officers, the more they concentrate it. People whose job it is to decide how many police officers to hire must consider the risk to each individual.
#3963 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-25 12:51:01
In France where we have a lot of available fissile material, we have under 1000 nuke warheads, and among them, about half tactical low power warheads, we don't really know what's the use at because we're cruelly lacking ennemies
, except for terrorists, since Russia is among our main gaz providers
France is making the same mistake with Putin as it did with Hitler. What is Putin but a megalomaniac dictator. Look at the history of Hitler's rise to power and now see what Putin is doing to gain the levers of power in his country. Russia is a bigger power than Germany, and look what he's doing to ethnic Georgians in Russia! Looks to me that Putin is making a naked power grab in Russia modeled after Hitler's rise in Germany. Maybe France can ignore this for a while just like it ignored and did business with Mussilini and Hitler, but this can't go on indefinitely. Eventually Putin is going to want something that France has, just like Hitler did. France will continue to sell its neighbors down the pike, like Churchill compared to "feeding the alligator in hopes that he'll eat you last." Eventually if this is allowed to continue, France is going to share a border with Russia, and Putin or someone like him will seek to gain new territory that can only come at Frances expense. France played this game and lost during World War II, do you want to play it again? Ask yourself, what would Napoleon do? Would he want to be dependent on a Russian dictator for his fuel supplies were he alive today?
#3964 Re: Not So Free Chat » Froggy's » 2006-10-24 12:27:26
Old European towns have crooked roads, and weren't really built to ease outsiders who want to navigate through them. In manhattan, for instance you have the numbered streets and avenues and in the older parts, you have named streets that don't meet at 90 degree angles to form blocks. I don't know what those old fossils where thinking when they built the place, didn't they have rulers?
#3965 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-24 12:22:17
Yeah, wait till he has 10,000 multiple warhead nuclear missiles pointed at us, then we can take action and the resulting nuclear war will be properly two-sided just the way liberals like it, rather than the one-sided thing it would be today. Liberals like to make it a choice, either everyone has nuclear weapons and a simgle irresponsible act will lead to a global world wide holocaust, or no one has them. If you force the issue between one of these two choices, you will more likely have a world where everyone has them than no one has them. A world with no nuclear weapons is ripe for conquest anyway by some nation who cheats.
#3966 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-22 13:33:45
What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.
Al Capone was American. Terrorists don't come from Canada; they come from the United States.
Al Capone didn't have to be a Canadian citizen, and it wouldn't have mattered if he was or he wasn't. Al Capone could and did sneak into Canada, in Canada there was no Prohibition, he could just order some spirits from a distillery and then ship them across the border into the United States. Whenever the US authorities gave him too much trouble, he could always hide out in Canada.Canada has very strict laws regarding guns; those same liberals you hate so much are so against guns they're almost paranoid. Any American who crosses the border with guns will be prime target, hunted down and arrested.
Its not the liberal part that I mind so much but the America bashing part that I don't like so much about Canadian Liberals. Because Canada is so similar to the United States, they often treat George Bush as the opposition, that means whenever liberals get into power in the Canadian government, intergovernmental relations gets worse. If they want to raise taxes and increase welfare spending, that is their business, but when you have Canadian fans booing and hissing American teams whenever they play in Canadian cities, that is also part of the liberal platform, it is wedded to this other stuff about social welfare spending and the like.
Do you want to solve the problems of cross border trade and movement, or do you just want to use it as an excuse to say bad things about the United States. Whipping up anti-US feelings in Canada is not going to bring down the trade barrier at the border. Things always change, so the relationship has got to be managed so long as their are two government. Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. The solution means coming to terms with why the border is not as free as it could be. Obviously the US Government does not feel so secure that it does not guard the border. Canada has an immigration policy that's seperate from the US, so their is the potential on Canada admitting immigrants that the US would not admit. I'm in favor of a dual key approach to admitting immigrants into our two countries, with something like that, we wouldn't need to guard the US Canada border.[One other fact you ignore: RCMP cooperates with the FBI to capture American criminals who cross the border into Canada. It isn't a military issue, it's a police issue. Read this article:
U.S. investigations on Canadian soil done within the law: Day
Those liberals are concerned with FBI crossing into Canada without permission. But even when the Liberal party was the government there was frequent authorized activity within Canada. In fact the FBI has field offices in Canada.A dramatic shoot-out with big guns is part of American culture, but it's very primitive and stupid.
Don't blame us, blame the criminals!
Competent police arrest criminals without firing a shot. Even in the United States, most real police go their entire career without ever firing their weapon. Perhaps at a shooting range, but never at a suspect. A single shot from a .38 calibre police revolver can take out a suspect with a .45 calibre Tommy gun. A good police officer can make the arrest without killing anyone. Coast guard vessels have been equipped with side arms for years, and each ship equipped with a single-shot riffle. If you know what you're doing that's all you need, if you don't know what you're doing possession of an automatic weapon is very dangerous.
Small time petty theives and burgalars aren't what I'm worried about. Police don't fire shots because they want to, but because they have to, it is not a matter of American culture. If a police officer goes unarmed into certain situations, he will be killed, and it doesn't matter how good a police officer he is. Yes, most police situations don't involve shooting, but the trouble is, you translate most into all. Just because a police officer is not likely to need his sidearm any given day of the week, doesn't mean he shouldn't have one. Otherwise when he encounters a terrorist group or something he won't be prepared. Liberals tend to be inflexible when it comes to law enforcement, they insist that police do everything according to the book and they write the book, but what you don't consider is that the book doesn't consider every possible situation that police might face. And have you, by the way, been to the hinterland of your own country?
Police: "Hello, this is the police."
Caller: "Help their is a Grizzly bear chewing on my leg!"
Police: "Just hold on tight, we're sending a patrol car over right away to shoot this bear, he'll be over there in 15 minutes."
Caller: "Well what do you suggest I do with the bear in the meantime?"
Police: "Don't offer him your other leg."
#3967 Re: Human missions » Newt Gingrich - Space President? » 2006-10-22 12:56:44
FOX News keeps insisting that we’re facing a crisis in North Korea. Tuesday night, 10/10/06, contributor Newt Gingrich said that the situation was so dangerous, it could result in “losing Seattle” or more American cities.
Another C-List
Nevertheless, Hannity & Colmes has presented a remarkably low level of foreign policy and national security “experts” to discuss the situation. Maybe that’s because the “blame Clinton” mindset seems to be more important than credentials. Last night’s (10/11/06) Clinton-blaming, national security “expert” was Ann Coulter.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Visits Bakersfield
Newt Gingrich came to town in hopes of drumming up support for congressional candidate Kevin McCarthy Monday.He said McCarthy will be effective in the house and has the ability to get things done.
http://www.turnto23.com/news/10038912/detail.html
During his visit he also spoke about the trouble in North Korea.
He said the U.S. government should avoid any face to face confrontation with the dictatorship of North KoreaGingrich warns of third world war, dictators
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/78141.html
How does this prove or disprove that Newt Gingrich would be a good space president? Are you saying Newt is giving bad advice about avoiding a face to face confrontation with North Korea?
I'm sorry but you can't make a domestic political issue out of this, this was just something Kim decided to do on his own, no President could have pursuaded him otherwise. This has nothing to do about space policy, so why do you bring it up here?
#3968 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-22 09:06:11
if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary.
First we aren't going to join the United States. When the US declared independence from Britain, Benjamin Franklin went to all 16 colonies; 13 signed the declaration of independence, 3 did not. Those that did not were Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Many within the 13 colonies saw themselves as loyal British subjects, they didn't want anything to do with a war. They moved to Ontario or the mainland of what was then Nova Scotia. Most Nova Scotia settlers before that lived on the peninsula, only a handful lived on the mainland. So many refugees from the 13 colonies settled there that it was separated into a new province; that's how New Brunswick was founded. With an entire province founded by Americans who didn't want to be American, we aren't going to join now. Look at this announcement:
Bush signing terror bill into law
So much for the US constitution that grants everyone a right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and the right to legal counsel. U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Since the United States is in such a rush to tear up its own constitution, we certainly cannot trust its federal government.
As for treaties being "interpreted" or "voluntary", you just admitted we can't trust anything any American government representative ever says or signs. Why should we feel compelled to comply with the clause that guarantees access to Canadian oil?
Because Canada is just the same. Canadians elect their own government seperately and so do US Citizens. Just as you can't control who we put into power, we can't control who you put into power. If one Canadian government is friendly, the next one might not be. You can understand the reluctance of one independent nation to trust another independent nation to defend its borders, while not doing so itself. It is not the Canadian Military we're worried about so much as criminal elements operating out of Canada and using it as a base for terrorists attacks in the United States. The concept is very simple, lets say there is a terrorist organization operating out of Canada, and their is a liberal government in Canada that is very keen on observing the privacy rights of its citizens. The terror group begins training, and launching attacks across the US border, machine gunning down some US border patrol agents as it crosses the border, and then taking over an elementary school and then starts shooting the children. The FBI chases them across the US border again, and then the FBI stops because the their jurisdiction ends. The Canadian government is contacted, but the liberals in power don't like the US very much, considering them a bunch of imperialist aggressive bullies, so it does the minimum and the terror group flourishes, launching attack after attack after attack, and the Canadian police persistently insist that they can't find them, or they can't obtain the search warrant, or they are suffereing from budget cuts and don't have sufficient manpower to hunt down the terror suspects, besides they aren't bothering the Canadian citizens much, they are minding their own business and only killing American Children. Why should Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for hunting them down? But don't you dare send American troops into Canada to hunt them down, we've got our soverighty top protect after all. When situations like that develop, we need to protect our border, and your whipping up anti-US sentiment by saying we're being unfair sure doesn't help. I'm saying that both sides are not perfect and holding a magnifying glass to the imperfections of the opposite side, sure doesn't help things. Canada is not inherently better or morally superior to the United States. Such one-sided views do not help in the fight against terrorism. If we are going to fight them. we've got to work together, and not have such aggreived public finger pointing and accusations. Again. I'm not a Lawyer, and I'm not going to make legal arguments with you ovwer who violated which treaty. what is important is that both sides interests need to be considered and addressed, you only want to consider one side and make legal arguments about who violates the technical letter of a 100-year old treaty. The important thing to me is winning the war on terrorism, it is the general principle of the thing that is important to me. That we don't always operate on the same page must be addressed, but not the way you address them by finger pointing, and trying to worsen relations between the two countries. These disputes must be bridged in a civilized fashion behind closed doors, not by public orators trying to inflame public passions and whipping up anti-US hatred and Us-Them US-bashing, that is excactly what they terrorists want, and you are playing right into their hands with your Canadian chauvanism. I agree with you that there should be freerer trade between the US and Canada, and that their should be an open border, but I don't use the lack of such as an opportunity to point fingers and cast blame on the other side. If you want an open border, then both sides are going to have to work together on this.
#3969 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-22 08:50:03
...This was signed before modern weapons were invented, when cannons firing 18 pound cannon balls were a significant naval weapon. This has been interpreted as "weapons of war". Read US or Canadian law, an automatic repeating fire riffle is a weapon of war. A 50 calibre machine gun is much more than a .223 calibre assault riffle, it can shoot down a helicopter. Look at the picture, it's a mounted deck gun.
As a weapon of war covered by the Rush-Bagot Treaty treaty, the US coast guard is permitted only one such weapon per ship and only one vessel so equiped on Lake Ontario, one on Lake Champlain, and two on the upper lakes (Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron). Notice it also says "all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled". That means any vessels exceeding these limits must be dismantled. Removing the weapon isn't enough; the entire ship must be dismantled.
What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.
#3970 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-21 14:33:56
Free access across the Canada/US border has already been negotiated. It was agreed to many decades ago, removing it is reneging upon an existing agreement. There were three main reasons for this: to be good neighbours establishing good will, to avoid conflicts at the border, and because it cost so damn much money to arm the border. Our border from the Great Lakes to the Pacific is thousands of miles long, it's way too expensive to arm that. Proceeding with arming the border means the US has violated yet another treaty. The US has earned a reputation for doing that.
Free Trade doesn't mean we don't defend our borders, it doesn't mean that if youlegalize marjuana in Canada that its automatically legal here too. Free trade simply means an even playing field, but we still control our borders, we don't let illegal things or aliens through. Since our immigration agents aren't in every port in Canada and can't prevent people from entering Canada, we must instead check our own border with Canada to prevent people who shouldn't be here from coming it, that is the only way to so it short of a Customs Union, which NAFTA is not. Why am I having so much trouble explaining this to you. Its an international border, and nothing about the NAFTA treaty states that we have to let anybody walk through this international border without screening, and if our border agents aren't armed, they could be murdered by smugglers or terrorists coming across the border. Canada has alot of open and empty space, and alot of place for criminals to hide. What NAFTA deals with are tarriffs, nothing about NAFTA says that we aren't allowed to guard our borders against threats to our security. We may be a superpower, but that doesn't stop terrorists from coming across and shooting up a shopping Mall for instance. Border agents must be armed, just like any other Police need to be armed when doing their jobs, to expect otherwise is unrealistic.
How about if a black man buys a Canadian company, and drives white businesses in the area out of business?
Canadians would have no problem with that. We don't have any prejudice toward black people. I live in Winnipeg, a city that has been and multi-cultural from its founding, the longest cosmopolitan city in Canada's history. Yet I did hear prejudice expressed toward Sikh immigrants coming from Pakistan. The primary complaint was they wanted to continue their conflict with Hindus. Canadians feel strongly that if you move to Canada you have to leave your conflicts behind; you can keep your ethnic clothes, food, music, dance, but you're expected to assimilate into Canada's view towards tolerance of other cultures and peaceful settlement of disagreements. Furthermore, there is great resentment toward immigrants to immediately go on welfare; the view is immigrants must work to earn their own living. So if an immigrant buys a business and runs it successfully, fine that's what they're supposed to do.
There is a very easy solution to this. "You want welfare, then lets see your ID. If you are not a citizen, then out you go, your visa is revoked. If you can't find a job here, you have no business being here"
By the way, the founding cultures were English, French, Scottish, Ukrainian, German, Mennonite, Icelandic, Chinese, Métis, and Native. That's in no particular order; actually the local newspaper did a survey in the 1980s and found the largest single ethnic group was Ukrainian, not English or French. There are so many people of Native descent in Winnipeg that if it were a reservation it would be the largest (most populous) reservation in the Country; yet they're just people working for a living like everyone else. Métis are half Native/half French, but their culture became unique hundreds of years ago. Métis consider themselves a "first nations people" meaning native, but the native people don't. Métis were a key player in founding this province, Louis Riel is recognized as the founder of the province and he was Métis.
Let me give another colourful example. If an immigrant girl from Afghanistan wants to wear a Burke and stands next to an immigrant from Spain wearing nothing but a mini-skirt and bra, each girl has to accept the other without complaint. Yes we do have Sikh and Hindu immigrants, Palestinian and Israeli, Protestant Northern Irish and Catholic Mainland Irish, all living side-by-side. They're expected to accept each other and coexist peacefully or get out.
So realize prejudice in Canada works differently than in the US. In Canada immigrants are expected to assimilate Canada's core values, but not assimilate surface things like clothing. Most importantly, if you want to buy a Canadian business then move your ass to Canada. Business owned by immigrates are fine, but we have really hate foreign owned business.
That is a stupid rule, it inhibits the raising of capital. Prejudice against foreign owned business is still prejudice. If you want a free trade agreement, then you can't have stupid rules like that, it is something a third world country like Mexico would have. So don't go poking at us and complain about how we protect our timber industry when you complain about foreign owned business, that is like trying to have tour cake and eat it too.
In a negotiation, each side seeks maximum advantage for its side, and the process of negotition, each side tries to get what it wants, and their are some things each side doesn't want as badly and so it is willing to give those things up in exchange for what it really wants.
With an ally you're supposed to work together as a team for the common good. An ally is not an opponent. If you can't understand cooperation, then you're an animal and should be treated as such.
Each side knows its own interests best, I don't know what else you expect. Do you expect US trade negotiators to represent Canadian Interests? Friends negotiate, allies negotiate, each country knows what it wants, and knows what compromises its willing to make in exchange for what it wants, its like any other business negotiation. An analogy is when you go to the store and you want to buy something, the store owner says, this item you want costs this much, and you pay the price or you haggle a little, it is not that you are the store owner are enemies otherwise he'd give the stuff away for free, it is that he needs to earn a living, and if he gave away everything for free, then he'd be out of business and unable to ffed his family, it is fundamental economics. And with trade negotiations the rule is, if you want to get something, you have to give something, allies or no, its the same situation.
Perhaps the next trade negotiation should be held in Canada, and if American negotiators attempt to push their advantage then we'll house them in a kennel instead of a hotel room.
The bi-national free trade agreement had some things Canada really didn't want. America first asked Canada for a free trade agreement after the Foreign Investment Review Agency and National Energy Policy were established, many American CEOs really hated FIRA, and American politicians hated the National Energy Policy. But when a Canadian government was willing to negotiate, they acted like they didn't want it and tried to put Canada on the spot. Canada did not want to guarantee access to any Canadian resource, our stuff is our stuff, but American wanted access to Canadian oil. The free trade agreement gave American unrestricted access to buy Canadian oil, but America could not restrict importation of any Canadian goods. But when one single steel company built a new furnace in 1992 that enabled them to make steel that was higher quality than another other American or Canadian steel company, and sell it at a lower price but still with enough profit to make their bank loan payments and pay dividends to their share holders, American steel companies screamed. The bi-national trade dispute board looked at it and said it was fair business. But a Virginia state court ordered the Canadian company to increase their prices to the point they weren't competitive any more. Where does a state court get off overruling an international court, where does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? That's why Canada insisted on writing into NAFTA that the NAFTA dispute resolution board is a court, and its decision must be obeyed. An appeals system was built in as well; the highest appeals court has heard the case for softwood lumber and made their decision. The decision was not entirely in Canada's favour, mostly but not entirely. The decision is that American cannot limit the quantity of lumber exported into the US, cannot set a minimum price, must immediately revoke all duties, and must repay 100% of every single penny of duty collected to date. The American government has still refused to comply. Canada has engaged in multiple court cases over this, the American government now promises to pay 80% but won't do so or remove the duty until after Canada cancels its litigation. The American government then told Canada's ambassador to Washington D.C. that American won't repay even one cent of the duty. Prime Minister Stephen Harper then got on the phone and got the American government to promise to pay the 80% they committed to, but they would only pay after all litigation is cancelled. You know how this works; once all litigation is cancelled they'll refuse to pay anything. They already told Canada's ambassador they intend to do that. Unfortunately Stephen Harper is believing liars. Most recently the US announced they gave 5% of what they owe Canada to charity. That's another statement of intent to not pay Canada. This is not how you treat an ally. If you want good relations with Canada then obey the treaty your country signed.
The NAFTA treaty is a complicated document, and I'm not a lawyer. I do know that the NAFTA treaty is not a customs union, the problem is there are two governments each with his own interpretation of what the NAFTA treaty means, and each government has its own judicial system, and enforcement agencies, and they have legislatures that write their own laws. The US Government's idea of what NAFTA means does not always correspond 100% with what the Canadian Government thinks it means, so long as we remain soverign independent nations and their is no higher authority to arbitrate these disputes, things are always going to be messy, and nothing is going to be perfect. if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary. This isn't a perfect world when you have many nations. Saying that harms international relations because lawyers don't agree in a complicated legal dispute, is absurd. For instance, if the Canadians clear cut their environment and destroy a forest habitiat while our lumber companies carefully manage their forests, you are forcing us to abandon our enviromental regulations and destroy our natural environments in order to compete with Canadian companies whose regs may be more lax. If we have power plants with scrubbers and you don't because your government doesn't, does that mean you get to sell us cheap electricity from coal fired plants and drive our power companies out of busniness because they adhere to our Federal regulations? These are just a few examples, and a Free Trade aggreement doesn't offer any simple answers. That we disagree on some things, it no excuse for an hate America campaign. Part of being an ally is to agree to disagree on some issues, and not hold other issues hostage to other things. Life is not simple, and that disagreements on both sides exist is only to be expected, no treaty can cover everything.
As for an American billionaire owning a Canadian business: where do you think the profits go? We don't want our wealth sucked out of this country to subsidize another.
The profits go into the billionare's pocket as a return on his investment, regardless of whether he is an American or a Canadian citizen, he pays his taxes of course, if it is a company operating in Canada, he pays Canadian taxes, whether he's a Canadian or not and afterwards, its his money, not Canada's or America's, whether he's an American or a Canadian. I don't see why American Investors should be discriminated against, isn't their money just as good as a Canadian Citizen, and doesn't he deserve a return on his investment just like a Canadian Citizen would. By discriminating against certain investors, you are choking off growth to the Canadian economy by reducing the amount of capital available. if you are a Canadian business owner who wants to sell his business and retire, you are reducing the value of his company and his retirement savings by restricting who he can sell to.
I didn't want Canada to enter into a free trade agreement with Mexico because it has a third world economy, but now that they are part of NAFTA why are you attempting to establish trade and immigration barriers with them?
If you want Canada's coast guard patrolling Canadian waters, we already do that. Here is a list of Canadian Coast Guard vessels.
But Canada's Coast Guard is not the US Coast Guard, it is not out looking for US interests, it is looking out for Canadian interests. I don't see why we should rely on a Foreign coast guard to guarantee our security, and that would be exactly what we'd be doing if we didn't guard the US/Canada border, if we didn't do that then some other arrangements need to be made for our security like a Customs union and a Jointly run coast guard, since we don't have that, we guard our borders, that is not so hard to understand I think. If you keep on thinking your the good guys and we're they bad guys, and you wonder why we don't give things away for free just because we're allies, then were not going to get anywhere in this debate.
#3971 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-21 08:39:53
I'm all for free trade, and the free movement of people across the US/Canada border, but I also want our security concerns addressed, and I don't want my country giving away stuff for free. If we are going to have free movement of goods and people across the US/Canada border, then we need something called a Customs Union between our two countries, we need a binational customs, naturalization and immigration service to make sure that the people we don't want in the US don't get into Canada either and that the Canadians don't want in their country don't get into the US. We are both immigrant nations, and I think we can agree on the types of immigrants that we want and on those that we don't want, but its a kind of dual key process. If one country lets a person in, but the other country doesn't want him, then that person can't get into both countries. Also beefed up border patrols along the Mexican border and along borders we don't share with Canada would also be required. That means a US/Canadian border patrol along the Mexican border, and a US/Canadian Coast Guard patroling the waters off of both the US and Canada. When these things are accomplished, then I think we can let people cross the US/Canada border willy nilly.
But its a two way street, you can't accuse the US because trade isn't as free as you would like, you must undestand the motivations of why each country wants to protect its economy and its citizens and deal with them, the above is an attempt to do just that. There is really no reason why we can't comer and go as they please.
#3972 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming the Moon - Your opinion, please » 2006-10-20 11:21:10
Keeping it properly mixed would require constant intervention. So much better to have a passive barrier such as a roof. What happens if you mix heavy and light gasses. The light gasses still rise to the top and escape. The best you can do with heavy gasses on the moon is to create a situation where people don't need to wear space suits, but still require gas masks to breath as the oxygen is always going to rise to the top and escape.
#3973 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Propitiation to the God of War » 2006-10-20 11:17:53
Rhymes with Jello.
Patrick Henry was outlining the reasons the colonists should fight, and that it is those reasons why we should fight. We don't fight for the sake of fighting, and the American revolution was just one example of why people fight. Some people try to portray it as simply war vs peace, it is never that simply. Some people fight because they want to invade, and other people fight because they want to defend. I don't know anyone who is interested in causing a War simply because they love warfare, it is the outcome they fight for, not simply so they can fight.
Some libs always think it is War vs Peace and their is no help for them if they always see things this way, but they should be kept away from the corridors of power, they are dangerous in that they might give too much power to the enemy when they are entrusted as a public servant. Remember the Series Amerika?
#3974 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea Blew the NUKE !!! DPRK tests the bomb ? » 2006-10-20 11:06:01
Depends on who is more suicidal. If North Korea threatens us, then we are going to stop North Korea. If South Korea is overrun by the North, that would be the first time I ever heard of a Third World Country invading a First World Industrialized one. Ultimately, the people are responsible for their own governments. Back during the Korean War, some people in the Korean Pennesula made a decision to support the Communist rebels over the democratic forces, they are responsible for Kim being there now. The North Koreans have continued to allow the Communist Kim government to rule over them. If Kim starts a war with the west, it is the North Korean people who will reap what their ancestors sowed. Unless Kim is overthrown, I feel that North Korea is going to come to a very bad end, and I don't feel we should make concessions to the North in order to stop it.
Whether there is a war that destroys Seoul and causes the West to retaliate against North Korea and hurt the people living there is entirely in Kim's hands. You can't say it is our fault for not sending him enough money or permitting him to gain nuclear weapons. If North Korea menaces the United States and Japan, then we should stop them, irrespective of whether North Korea attacks Seoul. The fault lies with South Korea for not preparing sufficient defences to stop the North Koreans, if this happens. If they tried to save money on Defense, and give peace a chance, this is how they pay the piper.
North Korea can trash Seoul if they like, but the US will defeat them, and I don't know how they can expect aid from us, it its going to rebuilt Seoul which they destroyed? Let them stew in their own rubble, if they obey their own government, and march, and launch missiles at Seoul, and kill their South Korean cousins, I don't know how they can expect help from them afterwards. People that start the war should pay a price for it. North Koreans abdicated responsibility for their own actions to their government, but they will still reap the consequences for it afterwards. If we have to send our soldiers their to fight them and to be killed by them, I don't see why we should help out our enemy afterwards. They can sit in their ruins and know that it was they, following orders from their own government, that ruined their country. They are responsible and no one else is. If an undemocratic regime arises from their rubble and causes more trouble again, then we will knock them down again and again for as many times as it takes to teach the North Koreans the lesson to leave their neighbors alone!
I'm sick of rebuilding countries and then being attacked for it! Iraq has taught us that lesson, their countries can stay ruined as far as I'm concerned, and if they cause trouble because of that, we'll blast them to rubble one more time! No more Marshal Plans!
#3975 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2006-10-20 10:02:57
Canada should join the United States, and their will be no trade barriers and people can come and go as they please.
Perhaps the United States should join Canada. That would make more sense. Canada has federal finances under control, greater literacy, lower crime involving guns, few people in jail as a percentage of the population.
Canada was invaded by the US twice, once in 1775 and again in 1812. We got over our differences; Canada and the US have been the best of friends for almost two centuries. Why spoil it now?
I haven't suggested that we should, I just cited it as a historical example.
We are a brother, an equal, we won't be treated as a territory or vassal of the US.
Who suggested you were. We respect your borders, and you should in turn respect ours.
There are large corporations in the US who try to destroy everything that's different from the US, and government trade negotiators always try to achieve an advantage.
The US government trade negotiators represent the US government, they do not represent Canada, which has its own negotiators. In a negotiation, each side seeks maximum advantage for its side, and the process of negotition, each side tries to get what it wants, and their are some things each side doesn't want as badly and so it is willing to give those things up in exchange for what it really wants. Canadians don't have an automatic right to travel across international borders or to ship goods across them, and neither do US citizens, that is something to be negotiated between our trade representatives. In such a negotiation, neither side always gets everything it wants, and their will be some controls at the border whenever we feel there are concerns like that of security that aren't being met. If we had a unified customs authority operated jointly by both countries, and a free trade agreement, then it should be possible to have free unfettered movement of both people and goods across the US/Canadian border, but that has not been negotiated yet.
That breeds ill will; if you don't like the attitude, you have only your own government representatives to blame.
There are many people in Canada who don't like the fact that American companies are buying up Canadian companies, or driving them out of business.
How about if a black man buys a Canadian company, and drives white businesses in the area out of business? No doubt some Canadians will get riled about that, although it would be politically incorrect for them to say so. If you have free unfettered access between both markets, then your going to have plenty of situations where Americans buy Canadian firms and drive Canadian owned compidators out of business, that is the price you pay for free trade, as the French say, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Favorable outcomes aren't awlays guaranteed by free markets. If you want a free trade agreement and a customs union between the US and Canada, then some people will always suffer from the greater competition, but the consumer as a whole will benefit.
When Canadian grain farmers sell more wheat to US pasta manufacturers, North Dakota farmers and their politicians cry, trying to make it appear unfair. When Canadian softwood lumber producers sell more lumber, higher quality lumber and at lower prices, the American logging industry cries.
Well, yes, we don't have complete freedom of trade and a customs union and of course American logging firms and the people who work for them are going to complain to their representatives, and since they vote, those representatives have to pay some attention to them, and not to Canadians who don't vote in US elections. The only real way to change this is if Canada becomes a part of the United States. Otherwise we can have a customs union and a free trade agreement, but congressmen and senators are still going to pay more attention to their own constituents than they are to Canadian citizens, that is the price you pay for being a seperate country.
Actually Canada has more land area that the US but 1/10th the population, that should tell you we have much more trees. Supply and demand, our lumber should be cheaper. When a single Canadian steel company invested in a new furnace in 1992 while every other steel company in Canada or the US used furnaces built at the beginning of World War 2, American steel companies cried. But you don't realize how many Canadian businesses have been taken over or driven out. Drive down a Canadian street and all you see are American franchises. It's very difficult to find a single Canadian business. Even "The Bay" had been bought by an American, a retail department store formerly known as "The Hudson's Bay Company" and a key part if building Canada, incorporated May 2, 1670.
You realize if America wants to continue establishing trade barriers and fortifying the border, Canada may very well re-institute the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
Free trade produces both winners and losers, in order for free trade to work most effectively, both sides have to become less sensitive to who owns what.
American owned companies won't be have any different from Canadian owned companies, they both will try to maximise their profits and cut costs. American owned firms aren't trying to operate an employment program for American citizens, they don't care whether their employees are Americans or Canadians and they don't favor one over the other either, to do so would be to reduce their efficiency and thus their bottom lines. The ownership of a firm matters little to a candian who buy groceries at a supermarket, it doesn't matter who owns the firm, whether he's American, Canadian, Black or white, the only thing that matters is whether the store has got what he wants to buy and whether the prices are low or high. Does it really matter to you about whether the rich guys who own the store that you shop at is an American or a Canadian, its not like a Canadian billionare is more likely to walk by and stuff $10,000 into your shirt pocket for no reason, than an American billionare would. A billionare is a billionare, and what country he holds citizenship in really doesn't change his behavior, his basic impulse is to make as much money as he can, if he can do so more effectively by hiring Canadian citizens, then he will, he does not do so out of a sense of patriotism, but he can get away with paying the Canadian workers less. Why do you think so many movies are made in Canada? Remember the Fantastic Four, even though that movie was set it New York City, it was actually filmed in Vancouver, they even built a set there that replicated the Brooklyn Bridge, instead of filming at the real Brooklyn Bridge in New York City. These decisions were all about economics and had nothing to do with patriotism. You should know by now that it doesn't matter who owns what company, whether they are US Citizens of Canadians.
By the way, I wonder how you feel about the use of the term Americans, technically Canada is Part of North America, but Americans generally refers to US Citizens, and Canadians have never insisted on being called Americans.