They might one day invade Alberta, who knows?!

 

They don't exactly have to invade Alberta. They already know that they can count on good old Raph Klein. No need to use military force and invade Canada. We have Canadian foot soldiers handing it all to them one company at a time through "U.S way or the highway" free trade agreements. With 40 centuries of American expanionism. Will Canada survive another 40? At this rate, I'm a pessimist and will say NO. :angry:

 

Kevin

That guy said, if we don't take libs out of power, we'll take Alberta outta Canada, right?51st state, eh?!

Yep 51st state. Interesting enough the U.S has some Northern areas that talk about being more like Canada. Vermont had a petition out to see the response would be about becoming Canada's 11th province. Or is that the 12th province now.

 

It is said Boston and Vermont are attracted to Canada's way of life. Many patriotic Americans frown upon these places considering them as evil because the Liberalism there.

 

Kevin

It seems to me(I might be wrong though) that in the US being dem is almost like an insult.

Your maybe right. And now imagine what sort of country can have a two party system, one party having full power. Then set out to make the second party seem evil because of its Liberalism. Then tell the American people that they are a democratic country. I remember reading something a few months back, that explained based on population, the U.S had a lower voting rate then undemocratic middle east countries. It is said that if Iraq had the same amount of voting based on population, they would not even consider the election legitimate. Hence the amount of people voting in the U.S is in fact not legitimate.

 

Such a small part of the population is determining who leads them. Some say its because of many non voters are just happy with the current state of the Country and the current leader. Some are not so naive and know that its about voters just feeling fed up. Like seriously, if people were that happy, they would go out and vote to make sure the leader is re-elected. That's not what happened. I believe voter percentage did go up in the last election, but still very low.

 

Almost the entire world chooses more democratic voting systems then the U.S. However, even Canada's voting system is nothing to brag about. It allows Liberals to rob us for way too many years, however, they have done some good for Canada. Just time to try some progressive ideas. Then again there is no more progressive party to vote for.

 

Before someone tries to label me as anti-american. Please! Please! understand that I am far from anti-american. But if talking against your government makes me anti-american, then I'll accept that label, even though it is far from true.

 

In free countries, democratic countries, its not considered (ex: anti-canadian or anti-britain) when someone speaks against the government there.) It only seems to be in the U.S that label gets used. Thanks to good old brain washing neo-con media.

 

With all that said. I feel there are good things in the American system that Canada can use.

 

Kevin

Hmm, I do gotta say that it's usual for democratic countries where there's no radical changes to have a low voting response.

I think that 2 party sistem isn't as bad as electoral college, so basicly that gives the Texas the same voting power as New York or California.

If it wasn't for EC I think Gore would have won.

"Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete."

 

Exit strategy; :huh: There is no strategy, and anyone who believes they know what to do next, are the same naive people who believe the same leaders who claim to protect them now, are the same people who were leading the country when thousands died in the World Trade Centre.

 

It goes something like this. "We will protect you, no one else could, but just forget that it was our mistake in the first place." "Trust me before, and I failed you, trust me again, maybe I won't fail you again".

 

I can't believe the Americans didn't stick it to those politicians after failing so miserably to keep them safe. Or not only keep them safe by security, but to keep them safe, from not creating enemies in other countries.

 

This war isn't going to solve the problems. It will "add wood to the fire". The fire the U.S started with the match called 'oil interest', or in other words 'economic interest'. Two different matches, used at the same time to ignite the attacks on American soil.

 

Maybe some positive outcomes will come of this. I hope there is. But for now I can't help but disagree with this war. Personally it's a concern when the country leading this war, has a leader who uses GOD to "legitamize" the war. Religious history is dark with so much evil with the name of God used. Wars, slavery, discrimination and racism. How could this man "Mr. Bush" be the one to claim "God Wants" this war to happen.

 

Kevin

 

their is an exit stratigy. leave once we've trained enought iraqi's to take over....thats the only one that will work. bush has said this oh so many times. but sadly most people dont pay attention.

dont forget the barrels of oil on your way out^

mrcool,

 

I know I may be digressing here. But wasn't it Mr. Bush and his people who oh repeated many times that they were going in there because of weapons of mass destruction? I think people did listen then. So why should they listen now?

 

After they realized that there was no weapons of mass destruction, and they stopped repeating oh so many times on the media about the WMD. The tone changed to one of what was suppose to be sincere caring, when they said it was for the Iraqi people.

 

I truly wanted to believe they really cared for the Iraqi people. But it just so hard to believe that, when considering there is many other countries they could care for, even during their friendship with Iraqi leaders. The only time the U.S government seems to actually CARE is when there is a threat to themselves. Explains why the Genocide in Rwanda happen with no help from the U.S. Not even any political pressure from the world super power.

 

800,000 people dead. Yah they just so care don't they. If the U.S was attacked from Rwanda, or if only Rwanda had rich resources the U.S had interest in. Then maybe those 800,000 would have got the help they needed. Naive I must say some people could be.

 

Now I will admit Canada is just as much to blame for Genocides and suffering countries. Canada is a wealthy country yet many smaller. less wealthy countries have a better record then Canada when helping those countries. Based on per capita, the U.S and Canada are way down at the bottom when it comes to helping out.

 

Like I said I would digress. But the point still stands, exist strategy could be just as valid as Iraq having WMD, or the U.S caring for the Iraqi people.

 

I have no problem and respect if you believe this stuff your saying mrcool. We have a different perspective of all this. So agree to disagree on this? :cool:

 

Kevin

dont forget the barrels of oil on your way out^

 

 

oil were paying for and iraqi's will use to rebuild their country and start a new free society....that oil?

"I know I may be digressing here. But wasn't it Mr. Bush and his people who oh repeated many times that they were going in there because of weapons of mass destruction? I think people did listen then. So why should they listen now?"

 

correction we went in for MANY reasons wmd's being the 1st and biggest....but also to free iraq, fight terrorism. But bush and many goverments made a mistake with teh whole wmd thing. but a president he was acting on what info he was given.

 

 

"After they realized that there was no weapons of mass destruction, and they stopped repeating oh so many times on the media about the WMD. The tone changed to one of what was suppose to be sincere caring, when they said it was for the Iraqi people."

 

 

please please please dont say that. so many people say this not knowing what they are talking bout. we've said from day ONE that its to help the iraqis as well as find wmd's. hence the name OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM!!!!!! when emphasized the wmd's more then the other reason but when we found out the cia, and many other intelligence agency's were wrong about that we simply stopped focusing on that

 

"I truly wanted to believe they really cared for the Iraqi people. But it just so hard to believe that, when considering there is many other countries they could care for, even during their friendship with Iraqi leaders. The only time the U.S government seems to actually CARE is when there is a threat to themselves. Explains why the Genocide in Rwanda happen with no help from the U.S. Not even any political pressure from the world super power."

 

we cant be everywhere at once we cant solve every problem. clinton was pres under Rwanda need i say more?

 

but what we do differs from president to president. we did this to help iraq along with help ourselves. im not fooling myself i know where getting good stuff out of this, but the same goes for iraqi's.

 

800,000 people dead. Yah they just so care don't they. If the U.S was attacked from Rwanda, or if only Rwanda had rich resources the U.S had interest in. Then maybe those 800,000 would have got the help they needed. Naive I must say some people could be.

 

Now I will admit Canada is just as much to blame for Genocides and suffering countries. Canada is a wealthy country yet many smaller. less wealthy countries have a better record then Canada when helping those countries. Based on per capita, the U.S and Canada are way down at the bottom when it comes to helping out.

 

"Like I said I would digress. But the point still stands, exist strategy could be just as valid as Iraq having WMD, or the U.S caring for the Iraqi people."

 

It is valid in a few years we will start sending troops home.

 

 

"I have no problem and respect if you believe this stuff your saying mrcool. We have a different perspective of all this. So agree to disagree on this? cool.gif"

 

 

sure why not? Btw I'm Nick. :cool:

So we agreed :D Thanks for not having "animosity" in your responses. And not labeling me as anti-american. I respect that. I run into way too many people who are probably in total agreement with what your saying here. But they get so hostile in their responses, it makes what their saying seem less worth reading. I often end up not even reading everything they have to say, because their tone discourages me from reading what they have to say.

 

I admit I don't agree with you. But I don't close myself to what your saying, and consider you my enemy. Allot of times conversations end in both parties seeing eachother as an enemy. I think that is another thing I dislike about the Republicans, the war they put out on Liberalism. Creating a devide amongst the American people. It seems your either a Republican or anti-american. Your either with us or against us. There is no middle. Which is strange that a praised democratic system would not have a middle ground.

 

I guess in the end the war on Liberalism was the inevitable. Because Liberalism isn't exactly a threat to America or any paticular Country. Liberalism is a threat to Religious values. Its a threat of giving too much civil liberties to people. Its a threat to Religious influence in policy making. Liberalism have owned the TV spots and Radio spots for a long time, brain washing the masses. And the Republican party is believed to be the savoir from all this. So let the war begin.

 

Kevin

Liberalism is a good thing at times. but as all things it can do harm to a nation.

 

btw i love your screen name.. seize the day! :)

dont forget the barrels of oil on your way out^

 

 

oil were paying for and iraqi's will use to rebuild their country and start a new free society....that oil?

I gotta ask you, because it seems just too naive to me.

What does "free society" exactly means in Iraq?

I mean if you're trying to build new Iraq based on american role model it just ain't gonna work.It would have the same effect as trying to impose their values in the US.

Well, I'd appreciate if you'd elobarote your statement.

Oh beside I almost forgot, being in a country that is still in "transition" I have to say I'm concerned where all that oil is going.Here during the privatisation

a lot of shady business happend, so I'm pretty sure your average Mohamed will have lil' use of that oil in Iraq.

freedom to elect their leaders, a consitituion. freedom of speech...not having to worry about being starved or killed by saddams secret police.

 

but the oil we buy from iraq is going to rebuilding the society saddam hurt...to pay for new goverments, school and to help out the iraqi people. but that must be a evil thing to do if it came from oil money.

 

we get what we want they get what they need.

but that must be a evil thing to do if it came from oil money.

I didn't say that!

Liberalism is a good thing at times. but as all things it can do harm to a nation.

 

I would love for the US to be "harmed" by liberal thought. The things Americans view as "liberal" amuses this Canadian.

manhn,

 

Expand on this please :huh: I'm interested. :wink3:

 

Kevin

One example. The way the media describes the Republicans as conservative and the Democrats as liberal when in most other western countries, the Dems would be seen as a conservative party. In Canada, John Kerry would make a very comfortable fit with our conservative party.

 

Oh, I'll give another. The way they describe FOX News as conservative and CNN as liberal. I can't imagine what Americans think when they watch the BBC or CBC.

Oh some of this is bull. Our Pres seems to listen to the people under him and so off we went to war, a war that has angered insurgents in Iraq and from manyother countries, and so our men die. I don't want our men to feel the war they are forced to fight isn't right, but I would prefer for them to come home and not be killed and not have many more Iraqi's killed or people kidnapped, and I am a liberal because I just don't believe everything we are told, and why should I. And what does this have to do with Coldplay

And what does this have to do with Coldplay

Nothing :P this is a secret politics thread :wink3: That's why there's a World of everything else section on this forum... So people like us can discuss our political slants

 

dont forget the barrels of oil on your way out^

 

 

oil we're paying for and iraqi's will use to rebuild their country and start a new free society....that oil?

 

Nick, just to make a point... Yep, the oil is paid for by the US... But by the taxpayers i.e. common people/individuals. I think Kapone's point is that this money goes into the pockets of certain well-connected parties allied to the Bush government. I think ordinary Iraqis will not profit much from this sale of oil unless the country manages to form a united and cohesive goverment that is more interested in the people/country's interests than in squabling for power amongst themselves.

the money goes back to the iraqi's to help rebuild we get what we want they get what they want and need....its a win win. take it for what you want.

Yep, the Iraqi government gets money from the taxes it gets from the oil companies. But you see... what do they use the money for? Is enough of it spent on healthcare, infrastructure and education for the people (assuming they do have healthcare and education systems in the first place), or do they use it to expand their military or worse still siphon off the money into their own pockets???

Something that wasn't mention yet. And since the topic is U.S oil interest. Why not discuss the fact that Iraq and Venezuela leaders had both started to move to convert Oil to the euro. A move that would have impacted the American economy. Which is probably why we hear Anne Coulter saying every country that didn't go to war with them were enemies to the U.S. Because we didn't see a threat to the American economy as a means to go to war. Even if the down-hill spiral of the American economy affected Canada, as it probably would have. It still isn't a means to go to war.

 

So mrcool, maybe they waren't literally going to take ownership of the Iraq oil. They wanted a degree of control to prevent Iraq ever converting oil prices to the Euro. This is a control they now have over any elected leader of Iraq, however, I think its just a matter of time that the new leader of Iraq will become an enemy again to the U.S. Peace will only come in the middle east when the U.S minds their own business at home, finds more to the economy then just oil industry.

 

Now to be somewhat off topic for my next few paragraphs. Which is a response to (Manhn). To make myself clear, I see conservative/Republican as the religious right. Because when dealing with civil law, or human rights, they will base it on the bible or religious influence. Since Religion is a threat to Liberty, and this Republican party has taken Liberty away. Sounds like a natural union going on there between church and state in the U.S.

 

I agree about the differences between Liberal and Conservatives in the U.S compare to other countries. In the U.S one could agree or disagree that there is a major clashing of ideologies in the U.S. That is sort of spreading all over the world.

 

One ideology is religious traditional values. And the other is non religious traditional values. One wants religious order in society through civil law - Conservative. The other wants more individual freedoms in society through civil law - Liberal.

 

If you take a close look at the arguments from the right, that there is a Liberal slant in media and content on TV and radio. There is some truth to that. Actually I would say its completely true. Just look at TV shows like "That 70's Show" or "Will and Grace", and movies like "Armagedon" or "Dazed and Confused". Personally, even I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth to the amount of gay content on the TV today, however, I won't say it should be off the air. I don't mind the content regarding marijuana use.

 

If the religious right influence the Republicans, and then take over the media, TV and radio content. Could we see the end of anything that promotes any Liberal progress? You for sure wouldn't see movies like "Armagedon". The religious influence on Conservatism, would want more "Rapture" type shows. They would want more shows depicting the Religious end to the world, rather then a science based end to the world.

 

What about shows like "Quantum Leap" that many of you may have remembered being played in the west here, or "Doctor Who" which was a hit in Canada in the 80's. Now its coming back. Would these physics or sci-fi type movies and shows ever make it to our televisions if its controled by the right? I doubt it.

 

The Chrisitians think any physics should be deleted completely out of schools, because they say its 100% theory. While they say the Bible should be put back into schools because it is fact. Now one may try to dispute whether the bible is fact. But that isn't the point. The point is schools should have both physics and religion in schools. And great minds could think for themselves. Why should there be a Liberal or Conservative slant in the educational system. Why not have both all through school.

 

To be honest I think the only solution to it all would be if we all became deaf mutes and blind. Then they would have no way of getting to our minds. We could just see the world through ourselves for once. ;)

 

Kevin

 

P.S....I'm a fan of reading books from both sides. When you understand both sides, you realize that they are both nuts, trying to control us. Although Liberal may seem like a freedom style ideology. They still promote allot of government control, which is close to communist ideologies. The Conservative, well their nuts because they think religion could control everyones life like in the dark ages. They want to repeat mistakes all over again.

The point is schools should have both physics and religion in schools. And great minds could think for themselves. Why should there be a Liberal or Conservative slant in the educational system. Why not have both all through school.

 

 

Well said Kevin, I don't get why education systems/policies can't have both in schools. And I extend this to the Creationism vs Evolutionism theories being fought out in US schools as well. I think having both'd be great for promoting greater understanding between people and moulding more balanced individuals. Why can't we admit to ourselves that both belief systems might be possible...

 

-Ai Ling