Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Texan anger... | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 13:44:27 10/23/04 Sat In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "This is how much the US (your 'closest' ally) likes the UK" on 15:24:47 10/22/04 Fri I have total sympathy with the anger in the American press over this idiotic attempt to interfere with the elections of another country. The backgroun is quite simply that the Guardian, a seditious and communist leaning newpaper, got hold of the electoral role of one of the counties in Ohio, the nearest-run swing state, and encouraged the newspaper's readers to bombard the inhabitants of that county with advice about how they should vote for Mr Kerry instead of Mr Bush, on account of the fact that Bush lures children into his gingerbread house, whereas Kerry is full of love for his fellow man, and if elected will have all of us holding hands in a huge circle around a rainbow singing "We are the World". It is utterly appalling that this should happen. Can you imagine the outrage if an American lobby-group tried to influence the outcome of a British election? Or if that lunatic Hasdrufurble and his United North America party bombarded Canadians with letters instructing them how to vote in the run up to a Canadian general election? The Americans did not just fight for their independence because they were tax-evading swine: there were at least some principles at stake! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: The Guardian | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:27:39 10/23/04 Sat That Clark County campaign by the British Guardian newspaper was an absolute disgrace. I am glad that it backfired and was abandoned. Nobody should ever do anything like that again. Michael Moore came up to Canada during our last election and told Canadians not to vote Conservative. He was politely told to leave and that what he was doing was illegal. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: The Guardian | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:38:35 10/27/04 Wed Can you imagine the Guardian’s reaction to the following? A team of ordinary voters from Dallas, Texas, have been sent to Britain to comment on our collective voting habits and choice of Government. Having learned about our political system, they soon concluded that it would be better for Britain if she were not governed by the present incumbents of the front benches of the House of Commons. On reflection, it is their considered opinion that a less-than-honest style-over-substance former lawyer turned politician, ought not to be the Prime Minister. Similarly, an ex ship’s steward, and his herd of assorted iconoclasts are not fit to be the Deputy Prime Minister and members of the Government respectively. In fact, a party that has done more to degrade the institutions, international credibility, established traditions, and not to mention the standing of politicians in general in this country, should be relegated to their rightful position on the opposition benches. These conclusions were reinforced after monitoring several Parliamentary debates, and the observations of the inarticulate interventions by the Labour-installed Speaker, which only emphasised that such a role should be filled by someone with a basic command of the language. Their conclusion was that Tony Blair should be removed from office as he has sought to undermine the transatlantic relationship by his obsession with all things European and socialist. On the other hand, he was in favour of the Iraq war, so he’s not so bad after all. There were reports that the Guardian are considering backing the Lib Dems at the election. I'll bet Charles Kennedy is thrilled. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: WOW ! | |
|
Author: Bruce [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:03:18 10/24/04 Sun Wow !! I'm concerned even shocked. We are all aware I believe, of the domination of the media in our lives. As far as I can see, gone are the days of balanced opinions in the press made obvious due to well known open editorial bias of one paper contrary to the views of its competitor. An informed and thoughtful person would read both before taking a position. Sounds rather like the House doesn't it with a LOYAL opposition. Now the tentacles of corporate media control are everywhere and propaganda the most prevalent source of info provided to we plebians. In Canada certainly, we are constantly having to concern ourselves with cross border influences, political and media as well as in every other way. If Michael Moore has access to the media to present a point of view, why should we exclude him any more than the Fox network for instance. The American Ambassador Paul Celucci had no hesitation telling Canadians how we should think and vote and we didn't ask him to leave the country much to the chagrin of many Canadians. He even openly insulted us while a guest in our country. The press repeated every pro American thing he said and almost did it in big red letters. Have we no pride? Canadians and indeed the whole world now has a stake in the upcoming US election. With some 150 Military bases in countries around the world, with Britain the U.S. largest aircraft carrier, with the American Government's policy of pre-emptive wars and insistence on operating outside of the UN when it serves their needs, why shouldn't people try to influence this election in the worlds only Super Power. Strikes me as only common sense. The day I see the US government operating with a sense of fairplay (remember the annointing of Bush in 2000), I'll let down my guard. You're right Ed, "The Americans did not just fight for their independence because they were tax-evading swine: there were at least some principles at stake!" The Principle that was at stake, was that the British were trying to do the right thing by the Natives and set aside the Indian Lands, off limits to white settlers and certain Americans didn't like that principle. That was cause enough to some (you know, the we can go and do whatever we wish and try to stop me type) Americans to pick a fight when Britain was occupied elsewhere. It is worth remembering that history is written by the victors and the world has succumbed to the propaganda of the Tea Party. I might suggest that reading the whole story of Tecumseh as a start might be helpful if you'd like more truth. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Anglo-American relations... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:57:54 10/24/04 Sun So Britain is the US's biggest aircraft carrier? The UK is also the single biggest foreign investor in the United States, its most important export destination and import origin. The dependency relationship has been exaggerated by the British Left for a couple of generations. We always do what the Americans do because we share interests and attitudes in common. It is quite obvious that the USA will never do anything out of gratitude, so any attempt to butter them up is not going to get us anywhere. So why go along with them? Because we genuinely agree about most things. As for the Imperial Civil War of 1775-83, the reason why we were attempting to protect Indian reservations westward of the Mississippi was because we wanted the colonials to move north into newly-conquered Canada in order to outnumber the French, so there would be no necessity to spend a fortune on a permanent garrison of 10,000 men along the St Lawrence to keep the blasted Quebecois in check. If they could go West instead of North, then the Grenville government's plan for an ethnic shift in North America would come to nothing. Concerns about the rights of natives were not paramount. Secondly, the principle chez the Colonials was that decisions were being made by a parliament in which they were not represented (as well as being tax-evading swine!). Had they been given, say, fifty seats in Westminster, then there would have been no problem. That, surely, is the entire purpose of the Federal Commonwealth - to represent us all in one body. Had we got our act together in 1763, or in the 1890s, then we would not currently be fragmented and treating each other as foreign countries. When the French Revolutionary Government met in 1793, they debated whether or not French settlements overseas should be included in the 'representative' assembly in Paris. The answer was 'yes', and that has never changed: French Guyana, those pointless islands in Oceana, etc etc, still send MPs to Paris. Can you imagine the British government accepting MPs from Gibraltar and the Falklands? The Maltese begged to be allowed to send MPs to Westminster after the War, but were turned down and are now as a result living in a republic with no connection to Britain at all. We should be less patronising about the American Revolution. Without it, we would not have learned the lessons embodied in the Durham Report and Canada would have gone the same way as America. Had we learned the lessons even better, the colonies would have started to send MPs to the Imperial Parliament, and we would still be a homogenous and unitary superpower. As it is, David Blunkett is off to Brussels tomorrow to append his signature to a treaty which gives control of our borders to a polyglot bureaucracy which meets in secret in a foreign capital. Immigration, asylum, passport control... from tomorrow it will be nothing to do with the British government, and will be decided by European majority voting. Long live the Empire indeed. If it goes on I might just move to America myself. Long may she wave... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Ango-Commonwealth relations | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:54:58 10/24/04 Sun "The UK is also the single biggest foreign investor in the United States, its most important export destination and import origin." I think the UK should be investing more in Canada, Australia and New Zealand instead. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: U.K. Investment | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:28:37 10/24/04 Sun The U.K. does hold enormous investments in those countries. The U.S.A. has made itself more attractive to foreign investment by having lower taxes etc... Besides, nowadays it is non-government run buisnesses that invest where they want to. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Imperial Civil War | |
|
Author: Bruce [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:02:53 10/24/04 Sun Ed, Can you further explain your statement of "Imperial Civil War of 1875-83" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Imperial civil wars... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:09 10/24/04 Sun Um, Imperial Civil War of 1775-1783, not 1875-83. I was refering to what the Americans call the Revolutionary War and what the British call the American War of Independence. My point in calling it the Imperial Civil War is quite simply that the divisions over which we fought occured all over the Empire, not just in North America. Many American colonials supported the Crown against the Revolutionaries, just as many in the British Isles supported the American revolutionaries against the Crown. Indeed, almost as many North American colonials fought for the Crown as did regular British troops. To call it 'The American Revolution' implies that it was a war in which the inhabitants of one part of the British Empire fought for independence from the rest. In reality, it was not so clear-cut... it was a civil war in which supporters of both sides were drawn from all parts of the Transatlantic British State of the time. If this were not true, then the British Empire Loyalists would not have made such a significant contribution to the beginnings of British Canada, nor would there have been such rejoicing in Britain and Ireland at the news that the American Colonials had won. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Civil War ? | |
|
Author: Bruce [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:12:54 10/25/04 Mon Ed, Thanks for the correction in dates. Simple carelessness on my part due to haste, realized after I was already well on the highway to an appointment. Sounds to me like the argument you are advancing is a much larger one than you've indicated, perhaps referring back to the 1640's. As such it seems you are at risk of reading too much into certain of the events you have alluded to. Considering the scope and size of the Empire at the time (Cook's voyage is just starting)in question as well as the turmoil throughout Europe and the world, it seems a bit of a stretch to view these events under a purely British-American perspective. By the way, I believe it is the British and Canadians that call it the Revolutionary War and the Americans who like the high sounding phrase "The War of Independence" There is no doubt that the 13 colonies had territorial designs on what is now Canada and of course beyond into the Indian Lands and that they were incensed that the Quebec Act wrecked some of their territorial plans making conflict more likely by an expansionist group of rebels. Further, following several attempts by the Americans to conquer and/or annex Canada between 1773-78, George Washington stopped a further plan to attack Canada fearing that it would provide an opportunity for France to resume its North American possession and thus advance a plan to keep the US more dependent on France for support. As usual, especially from that time forward, the interests of Canada have been caught fully between those of America and Britain and frequently France. So Civil War - I'm not convinced, that is too convenient. If it was it begs two questions; 1. Is that civil war over yet? 2. If so, who won and what did they win? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Anglo-American relations... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:03:42 10/25/04 Mon Ed: Good posts. A closer Commonwealth should be about building ourselves up, not tearing the Yanks down. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Just in case/Say it isn't so | |
|
Author: Bruce [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:35:36 10/25/04 Mon I find it more than a little disappointing that speaking pro Canada is frequently viewed as anti American in this country (Canada). Seems that speaking pro British might also encourage that same narrow reaction. I sincerely hope that is not what I am experiencing Brent. If the United States of America can do no wrong and must be considered beyond criticism, including their historical and continuing injustices against their neighbour to the North, then may God help us all. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Just in case/Say it isn't so | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:39:08 10/25/04 Mon Bruce: Far from it. I share your feelings regarding our "special relationship" with the US. I have no illusions that they would backstab us if it suited their domestic agenda or their perceived "security interests." I also, however, believe that anything conceived out of anger or haste rarely lasts. Any initiative that brings the Commonwealth closer should be done not to screw the Yanks, but to help ourselves collectively. It should be about building ourselves up, not tearing others down. I believe that the US will have a great reckoning one day. It is incumbent for all of us in the Commonwealth to build a mechanism, whatever it might be, to save ourselves when the American Empire implodes... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: EU | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:45:03 10/25/04 Mon >>As it is, David Blunkett is off to Brussels tomorrow to >>append his signature to a treaty which gives control of >>our borders to a polyglot bureaucracy which meets in >>secret in a foreign capital. Immigration, asylum, >>passport control... from tomorrow it will be nothing to >>do with the British government, and will be decided by >>European majority voting. Long live the Empire indeed. >>If it goes on I might just move to America myself. Long >>may she wave... It is very sad what is happeding to your country, Ed. I hope these changes are capable of being reversed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Reversal | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:40:40 10/25/04 Mon Oh they are most certainly capable of being reversed. We will simply make paper aeroplanes out of all the treaties we have signed, and fly them back across the channel. The question is this; do we have the political will to do it? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No we don't, not at the moment | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:15:44 10/25/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |