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: Let's just agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 02:53:13 12/03/04 Fri In reply to: Kevin (U.S.) 's message, "I think Bush is fine" on 02:11:06 12/03/04 Fri [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: will do | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:44:44 12/03/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Blimey Jim stand up for yourself! | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:02:52 12/06/04 Mon Jim don't be afraid to say what you bloody well think about Bush and the Americans. God if we cant have free speech in a bloody forum where can we? Here all start: I find the United States to be a large, self-absorbed, self-serving, and ignorant population who couldn't find any of the CANZUK countries on a map if their lives depended on it. They are currently screwing Canada in terms of trade, and I'm absolutely SICK of Canadians who don't have the backbone to stand up to them. The americans are NOT God, they only think they are. Canada can get on without the United States, its just that the media and the Canadian government brainwash the Canadian public into thinking we couldnt because they are businesspeople with ties to American corporations. Recently, the Canadian wheat board started diversifying their exports beyond the US because of ridiculous US tariffs, and did that industry fall on its knees? NO. Canada can and should re-develop stronger ties with the New Zealand, the UK, and Australia, because putting so much stock in the US is not only stupid, its dangerous. And if Canada doesnt change, when the US goes down, Canada will go down with them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: But Andrew | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:24:00 12/06/04 Mon Is there no way of criticising the US administration without insulting individual Americans who post here and who do not "think they are God" ? Jim has made his point (and he certainly doesn't pull his punches when he gets wound up), Kevin has made his, and they have agreed not to fight about their differences, knowing that neither will change the other's mind. Bravo, I say: that's adult behaviour. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: I also believe in respecting other people's views - that is the essence of free speech | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:05:08 12/06/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: besides | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:15:00 12/07/04 Tue "God if we cant have free speech in a bloody forum where can we?" I did not ever tell Jim that he couldn't give his opinion. Nor did anyone else tell someone to not give their opinion. We are all respectible, curtious people here, and like everyone elses opinion, yours is respected. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: a little bit of overkill? | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:03:45 12/06/04 Mon Well...I think ur going overboard...America may be self-absorbed and self-serving...but all countries are. Also, I would tell you that yes, most Americans can find Canada, Australia, and New Zealand on a map...I mean come on ur asking them to find a continent, the islands next to it, and to look north, and then the UK...not exactly like trying to find Pitcairn is it? As for Canada getting on w/o America, its entirely possible, just inconvient. The fact that 50% or so of Canadian exports go the US is b/c that its easy to import goods to America b/c of geography and the large market. Canadian business could certainly shift elsewhere, its just not as profitable. As for Canada needing to abandon the US b/c "when the US goes down Canada will go down with them" is an overstatement. The fact of the matter is America will not go down for a while. Its hard to go down when the American GDP is so large and it will take time for any power to challenge the US, China needs at decades to rise to the challenge, Russia's glory days are long past, and the EU...well I simply dont believe its going to take less than a few generations for them to actually be able to unite the ppl of Europe psychologically/culturally...if at all. And please, if anyone believes the Middle East is going to get better and bring down america...dont delude yourselves, the fact is that oil will run out in the next around 75-100 yrs at most (less w/increased consumption) and then those countries will be nothing more than sand...hardly the building blocks of power...especially in the state that they're in now. While I admit that Americans can be arrogant, especially if ur Anti-Bush (which u probably r), one must take things into perspective. America is the current superpower and when ur their next door neighbor, its usually advantageous to defer and get preferential treatment, rather than be bitter and sour relations. Canada should seek closer ties to the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. However, by no means does that mean that it should deliberately abandon relations with the USA. Thats my perspective at least (I admit its probably biased as I am American...) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Closer ties and the US | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:41:34 12/06/04 Mon In fact, the current close alliance of the UK and the US is good for Canada. It means that we can have closer ties with the UK and maintain our close friendship and trade ties with the US. It could work as a nice triangle. It is so important for Canada to have a good relationship with the US because we are neighbours and trade alot with each other. Having an English-speaking nation such as the US as the one superpower can only help us as it would naturally bring other English-speaking nations together - notice the close alliance of Australia and the UK with the US. If a change in government in Canada brought about a pro-US government such as the Conservatives, we would be part of that alliance and that would probably bring us closer ties with the UK and Australia - militarily anyway. The US is in a position to bring about closer CANZUK ties by forging a stronger Anglosphere alliance. Whether we like it or not, we need the USA and we must remain on good terms with them. This doesn't mean that we put all our eggs in one basket by trading only with them or even agree with their foreign policy, we don't have to do that. However, the CANZUK nations must work together by them all maintaining a good working relationship with the USA. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: U.S. dangerous superpower | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:37:45 12/07/04 Tue i disagree...what the US is doing militarily in Iraq and elsewhere is going to bring a strong negative sentiment from a lot of countries across the Atlantic towards it, and i think Canada( as well as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) need to start distancing themselves from the US to avoid being grouped together...why does everyone think that Canada needs to give preferential treatment to the US because we're their bloody neighbour? im not saying to abandon all ties with the US, thats impossible because of geography, but i definitely believe that Canada needs to start giving preferential treatment to the CANZUK and Commonwealth countries...i dont know why people believe that just because the US is the dominant superpower in the world right now, that we need to make sure we include them in everything...its bloody well time they were excluded from something...besides there needs to be a predominantly English speaking power that other countries can look to as a more liberal and compassionate alternative than the US...no matter what people say, Canada is much more similar to the other CANZUK countries than it is to the US, both in terms of government(consitutional monarchy with a strong emphasis on social programmes) and culture(British/European and Native populations, along with an increasing number of immigrants from Asia, as well as other places)...all im saying is that the US having all this power and influence is dangerous, and there needs to be a counter-balance. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I don't think any other potential superpower would be any better | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:48:49 12/07/04 Tue Yes, the USA is dangerous. Superpowers are dangerous pretty much by definition, but there is always likely to be at least one of them in the world, and I don't think I would feel any *more* at ease with China, Russia or any other you could imagine. Should CANZUK pull together? Absolutely! Would we be very different from the USA if we were the world's big guy? I'm not sure that we would. Is a counterbalance a good idea? Very probably. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:08:53 12/07/04 Tue We were no different from the USA when we were the world's big guy. QED. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: We were actually much better... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:38:12 12/07/04 Tue :0) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I think we were too. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:00:40 12/07/04 Tue Well one could certainly argue that we developed the world in a much more responsible and hands-on way than the modern US, which uses purely the tactics of gunboat diplomacy, subterfuge, cultural propaganda and corporate 'globalisation'. The techniques and outcomes are similar, and in part dictated by historical circumstance, but while I can understand why nationalists in other countries might have found the British even more objectionable than the Americans today, in fact the effect we had on the world and on their countries was probably less selfish and more benign, and certainly involved a lot more respect for their interests and cultures. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You maay have a point there. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:30:56 12/07/04 Tue But at the time, rather than with historical hindsight, it did look to foreigners as if we too were great exponents of "gunboat diplomacy, subterfuge, cultural propaganda and corporate 'globalisation'" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well yes and no.... | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:41:14 12/07/04 Tue I do admit that the British Empire of the 19th century was the most benevolent and culture-respecting empire in history. I mean yes it did the modern world through its enforcement of free trade, development of colonies and investment into underdevelopment countries, etc. And it did respect most cultures...but there were some dark actions done in this period to. The Boer War was obviously one, the brutal savagery that occured on both sides of the Indian mutiny, and of course the burning of the Emperor's summer palace in the opium war (Im chinese..had to throw that in). So the British did have some dark spots too...to put everything into perspective. Oh and I think that it was British diplomacy in the 1800s that coined the term "gunboat" diplomacy...im not sure...Niall Ferguson's Empire seems to suggest that but not outright say it... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:54:53 12/07/04 Tue Gunboat diplomacy was first coined at the time of Palmerston's longest ministry. It had to do with the shelling of Piraeus after the Greeks arrested David Pacifico - a Maltese jew who, because he was born in Gibraltar, had a British passport. They tried to impeach Palmerston, but failed after he gave a 3 hour speech without notes defending his policy. Look up the speech if you can... it is worthy of George Bush... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Here it is... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:16:47 12/07/04 Tue "I therefore fearlessly challenge the verdict which this House is to give... whether, as the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say 'Civis Romanus sum'; so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong." Lord Palmerston, House of Commons, 6/25/1850. And when he said it it was actually true... those were the days, eh? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: yes entirely | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:01:44 12/07/04 Tue I was intentionally drawing the parallels between British and US foreign policy when I mentioned gunboat diplomacy, etc. I would hardly say my preceeding piece is a glowing jingoistic list of British triumphs - merely a suggestion that the modern superpower is perhaps less benevolent overall than the previous one. in a world whose values are far more liberal and where most would not expect this to be the case - particularly not the average American (or probably even Briton) brought up on a diet of Hollywood drivel. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |